Compare TestRail and Tricentis qTest 
- Users report that Tricentis qTest excels in its Test Feedback feature, with a score of 9.2, allowing teams to gather and analyze feedback efficiently, while TestRail also performs well but slightly trails behind in this area.
- Reviewers mention that Tricentis qTest's Test History functionality is rated at 9.0, providing comprehensive tracking of test cases over time, which is crucial for maintaining quality, whereas TestRail's similar feature is not highlighted as strongly by users.
- G2 users indicate that Tricentis qTest shines in its Organization and Reliability for automation, scoring 9.3 and 9.2 respectively, which helps teams streamline their testing processes, while TestRail's automation features are rated lower, suggesting less robustness in this area.
- Users on G2 highlight that TestRail's reporting capabilities are slightly better, with a score of 8.3 compared to Tricentis qTest's 8.2, making it a more favorable option for teams that prioritize detailed reporting and analytics.
- Reviewers mention that Tricentis qTest offers superior customization options with a score of 8.7, allowing teams to tailor the software to their specific needs, while TestRail's customization features are perceived as more limited.
- Users say that both products perform well in Test Diversity, with Tricentis qTest scoring 8.4 and TestRail at 8.6, but TestRail is often noted for its flexibility in accommodating various testing methodologies, which can be a deciding factor for some teams.
- No IT required, get started in minutes
- Automated updates & optimizations
- Secure hosting on super-fast servers
I am experienced in a number of test management tools including HP ALM/Quality Center, IBM's Rational ClearQuest, SmartBear's QA Complete, among others. I am now one of the owners of a small professional services group, and I have management...
I don't like that once you close a ticket in Jira the status of the ticket reads closed in TestRail, yet Testrail still shows that issue as either needing to have a test run on it to pass or fail. If its closed its closed, and no longer needs tests to run.
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.
I am experienced in a number of test management tools including HP ALM/Quality Center, IBM's Rational ClearQuest, SmartBear's QA Complete, among others. I am now one of the owners of a small professional services group, and I have management...
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...
I don't like that once you close a ticket in Jira the status of the ticket reads closed in TestRail, yet Testrail still shows that issue as either needing to have a test run on it to pass or fail. If its closed its closed, and no longer needs tests to run.
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.
