"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"It is a very common and strong product. A lot of support is available for this product."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"The stability has always been very good."
"I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT. Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited. The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application."
"With TestRail, the APIs are there, but they may not be able to easily integrate with the Jenkins."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"In Visual Studio we still don't have anything which can pinpoint memory leaks on a certain code line."
"The integration with Git needs improving because it is a bit disjointed and unpredictable."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"One of the problems with this solution is you need to be highly technically skilled to operate it, it is not for everyone."
TestRail helps you manage and track your software testing efforts and organize your QA department. Its intuitive web-based user interface makes it easy to create test cases, manage test runs and coordinate your entire testing process.
Easily track and follow the status of individual tests, milestones and projects with dashboards and activity reports. Get real-time insights into your testing progress and boost productivity with personalized todo lists, filters and email notifications. Efficient test management, get started today!
TestRail by Gurock is ranked 11th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews. TestRail by Gurock is rated 5.6, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of TestRail by Gurock writes "Increases overall testing productivity, but not an automation-driven solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Offers lots of features, including memory analysis and code sharing". TestRail by Gurock is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, TFS, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Hiptest and SpecFlow, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Tricentis NeoLoad. See our TestRail by Gurock vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.