Compare PractiTest and Tricentis qTest 
- Users report that Tricentis qTest excels in its Test Feedback feature, with a score of 9.2, allowing teams to gather insights effectively, while PractiTest also performs well but does not have a specific score for this feature.
- Reviewers mention that PractiTest shines in its Quality of Support, scoring 9.1, which is notably higher than Tricentis qTest's score of 8.2, indicating a more responsive and helpful support team.
- G2 users highlight that Tricentis qTest offers robust Test Variety with a score of 9.2, making it easier for teams to manage different types of tests, whereas PractiTest's Test Diversity score of 8.7 suggests it may not be as versatile.
- Users on G2 report that PractiTest's Integration capabilities score 8.5, which is higher than Tricentis qTest's score of 8.1, indicating that PractiTest may offer more seamless connections with other tools.
- Reviewers say that Tricentis qTest's Administration features, particularly in Requirements Listing and Traceability, score impressively at 9.1, suggesting strong capabilities in managing project requirements compared to PractiTest.
- Users report that both products have similar star ratings of 4.3, but PractiTest has a significantly higher total number of reviews (224) compared to Tricentis qTest (67), indicating a broader user base and potentially more diverse feedback.
- Issues, Requirements, Tests, and Test Sets & Runs
- Unlimited Custom Fields and Filters
- Unlimited Projects
1. Visibility Visibility Visibility!!! The dashboard is amazing. I can create new tabs for my personal use and use fields and filters for the data. We use also the external dashboards and it really helps us all be aligned (we have it right in-front of the...
Search feature returns are head-scratching--searching for specific test cases rarely return anything useful. Filters and Folders structures are convoluted and archaic--ultimately these become catch-all areas and become useless over time. Mass editing is...
The API allows us to be flexible in our testing strategy. We are able to easily aggregate results from several different sources to give a complete testing picture. This tool seems to have taken a more forward thinking approach vs other tools we evaluated...
The addition of the mark up fields on the test case creation screen really slow down how long it takes to complete a test case.
1. Visibility Visibility Visibility!!! The dashboard is amazing. I can create new tabs for my personal use and use fields and filters for the data. We use also the external dashboards and it really helps us all be aligned (we have it right in-front of the...
The API allows us to be flexible in our testing strategy. We are able to easily aggregate results from several different sources to give a complete testing picture. This tool seems to have taken a more forward thinking approach vs other tools we evaluated...
Search feature returns are head-scratching--searching for specific test cases rarely return anything useful. Filters and Folders structures are convoluted and archaic--ultimately these become catch-all areas and become useless over time. Mass editing is...
The addition of the mark up fields on the test case creation screen really slow down how long it takes to complete a test case.
