Here is the scenario. My client does not have a test management tool. They are currently using Jira to some extent for test management. Tosca Tricentis is their automation tool. I have suggested them to use Tricentis COnnect with Zephyr, as this will be economical, considering their testing team size (less than 15 people). But the client is suggesting to use qTest for test management. Do you think this is the right approach? I welcome suggestions on this
2 Likes
This subject is great for a discussion and I have even come across a similar case already.
The client has already automated his/her processes with Tosca Tricentis, so it is quite evident that qTest will be the next step to be taken since it is a product of the same family. Nonetheless, my view is that TestRail is a less biased option and offers more features for small and medium-sized teams.
This is the reason why I would rather that choice:
Integration roll-up: TestRail easily integrates with Jira, Tosca (you can choose either REST API or plugins), and CI/CD tools without binding you to one ecosystem and at the same time.
User-friendliness: The general interface is very neat and quite user-friendly. Most of the time, TestRail feels lighter when it comes to managing test cases, whereas qTest tends to be a bit heavy for small teams, which is the opposite of its being.
Cost & Scalability: TestRail is the ultimate choice for a less than 15 testers team in terms of price and scalability when the team eventually grows.
Reporting: Built-in dashboards and traceability provide solid visibility without requiring much configuration effort.
Thus, qTest is a viable option for the enterprise level (more than ever if the team using the tool is dependent on Tosca) but I would still personally opt for TestRail in this situation. It is more user-friendly, cost-efficient, and can integrate well with Jira and other tools.
To sum up:
TestRail → Flexible, affordable, and perfect for small to medium-sized teams.
qTest → Best for big companies requiring complete Tosca integration.
Zephyr + Connect → A good temporary solution but limited in terms of future scaling.
Ultimately, the decision lies with the client between deep integration and lightweight flexibility. TestRail strikes that perfect balance.
Hi Ramanan
Thanks for the response. In this context, the client is looking to install Tricentis Tosca, so as a package, they are trying to consider qTest. I have told them that Tosca Connect is an option, as it easily integrates with Zephyr. However, the client was asking if qTest is a good option, as the application landscape is majorly on SAP.
1 Like
I’ve been in a similar spot before and we tried out Zephyr, qTest, and Tuskr across different teams.
Zephyr works fine if your whole process lives in Jira, but it starts to drag once your test library grows, and the reporting can be a bit barebones.
qTest has tons of enterprise features and solid automation hooks, but honestly, it’s too pricey and unwieldy in the end.
Tuskr was the easiest to get going. Clean interface, great integrations, smooth CI/CD sync, and it didn’t bog us down with extra admin. For a team under 15, it’s probably the most balanced option without feeling stripped down.
I’ve never understood why anyone would choose to use Zephyr… I’ll preface that statement by saying the last time I used it was probably 5 years ago, so it might be better these days. But to me it always felt like it was trying to make Jira do a job it wasn’t really designed for. For our team, it really didn’t scale well with lots of test cases, and the general usability felt clunky to me.
I can’t comment on qTest as I’ve only used a demo. But I’d second Testrail over Zephyr any day.
You can also check the BrowserStack test management tool. The test management tool comes with AI Integration, which can help you in various testing activities, and if you purchase their license, they provide support for any issue immediately.
Their UI is simple and easy to use.
Have you considered testresults io? It’s different from Tosca so you wouldn’t need two separate tools for automation and test management. Everything from creating, running, and tracking tests is built into one platform
They also handle full migration, so you can bring over your existing Tosca setup without starting from scratch. For a smaller team, that usually means less admin work, lower costs, and fewer moving parts to maintain
I personally prefer plain Confluence by this: https://community.atlassian.com/forums/Confluence-articles/Manual-Test-case-management-with-Confluence/ba-p/876759
Also you have the freedom for more explorative approaches. E.g. I create a page per user story and note there all testing.
And you can implement a Low-Tech Testing Dashboard easily.
Hi, You’ve had many suggestions here, some good ones. I’d like to add our test management tool to the suggested tools list, that is Testuff. Integrates with Jira, with both a two-way integration and a unique Jira App to show details from Testuff right within Jira issues. Testuff also integrates with any automation tool so you’re covered on that aspect as well. Good luck with any tool your customer selects.
Given your team size (<15 testers) and the fact that you already use Tosca, qTest will certainly integrate well with Tricentis tools, but it may be more than you actually need, both in cost and feature overload. Your suggestion of using Tricentis Connect with Zephyr is a possible, economical option, especially if the team is already comfortable working within Jira.
If the client prefers a simpler and more cost-effective solution, lightweight tools like TestLodge can also work well and integrate very well into Jira.
Hi everyone,I’m reaching out to get some input from the community about the test management tools you are currently using.
Because we have a complex product and already use automation, we’re still missing a single source of truth for our test execution data.
Until now we use Confluence but there is no way to link the automation checks and there is no execution history or dashboards ect.
We’re currently evaluating a few solutions (mainly BrowserStack Test Management and Qase), but we haven’t found the “holy grail” yet. One of our biggest challenges is that many tools enforce a very step‑driven test structure (steps, expected results, preconditions…), while we work in a more agile and lightweight way.
We prefer simple, scenario‑based test cases: just a title + free‑text description, without auto‑generated steps.
However, when importing test scenarios from Confluence, tools often create steps or split scenarios even when we try to disable that behavior.For context, here’s our current test stack:
• Frontend testing: Playwright
• Mobile testing: Espresso, XCUITest
• Visual testing: Screenshot tests
• Network/API testing: Postman
• CI/CD: Bitrise + GitHub Actions
• Version control: GitHub
• Documentation: Confluence (many scenarios already live there)
• Issue tracking: Jira (currently on‑prem, migrating to Jira Cloud in 1–2 years)
We’re also curious how other teams approach traceability today.
• How do you link your test cases to Jira requirements or user stories?
• Do you use full requirement → test → execution → defect traceability?
• Or do you rely on a lightweight approach?Given all of the above, I’d love to hear from you:
Which test management tool are you using today?
• What works well?
• What doesn’t?
• Any recommendations for lightweight, scenario‑driven test management?
• Bonus: tools that integrate nicely with both mobile (Espresso/XCUITest) and web (Playwright).
• And how do you handle requirement or Jira ticket traceability in practice?
Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences!