Compare Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise 
- Users report that Tricentis qTest excels in its Test Feedback feature, scoring an impressive 9.2, which reviewers mention provides comprehensive insights into test results, making it easier to identify issues quickly.
- Reviewers mention that Zephyr Enterprise shines in Reporting, achieving a score of 9.2, with users on G2 highlighting its robust reporting capabilities that allow for detailed analysis and visualization of test data.
- G2 users indicate that Tricentis qTest has a strong Test Repository functionality, scoring 8.9, with reviewers saying it offers a well-organized structure for managing test cases, which enhances overall test management efficiency.
- Users say that Zephyr Enterprise offers superior Test Diversity, scoring 8.9, with reviewers noting its ability to support various testing methodologies, which is particularly beneficial for teams using Agile and DevOps practices.
- Reviewers mention that Tricentis qTest's Automation Organization feature scores a remarkable 9.3, with users on G2 praising its ability to streamline automated testing processes, making it easier to manage and execute tests.
- Users report that while both products have strong Version Control, Zephyr Enterprise edges out with a score of 8.8, with reviewers highlighting its seamless integration with CI/CD pipelines, which enhances collaboration and efficiency in software development.
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...
Overall support for automated tests is not great: We need to be able to easily integrate with any open source testing framework and it's more code than expected
You can Link your defects to Stories. You can Link your defects to Task. You can Link your defects to Requirements. It is really easy to Create Test Cases, Update those test cases, and Cloning those test cases. You can easily Planning the Test Cycle...
Some of the organization is non-intuitive and buggy. I also think that it could be more user-friendly, perhaps with some pre-made templated test cases (titles giving hints on what to test and possible priorities)
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...
You can Link your defects to Stories. You can Link your defects to Task. You can Link your defects to Requirements. It is really easy to Create Test Cases, Update those test cases, and Cloning those test cases. You can easily Planning the Test Cycle...
Overall support for automated tests is not great: We need to be able to easily integrate with any open source testing framework and it's more code than expected
Some of the organization is non-intuitive and buggy. I also think that it could be more user-friendly, perhaps with some pre-made templated test cases (titles giving hints on what to test and possible priorities)
