aqua ALM vs PractiTest — the best test management tool vs the best all-in-one tool
Tags: testing, tooling, productivity, management
Published: 2022-05-31 12:20:34

In this article, I am intending to review the difference between [aqua ALM](https://aqua-cloud.io/) and [PractiTest](https://www.g2.com/products/practitest/reviews), two similar and very productive test management tools currently popular in the market.

Both tools present themselves as application lifecycle management platforms and one-in-one testing management solutions. And telling the truth it is pretty difficult to distinguish the stark contrast between them. With both of them, you can manage your testing processes from A to Z, adjust requirements, plan tests and write test cases. However, there are a couple of subtle but very significant differences between them that can be fundamental for your decision.

**Quick feedback after QA activities**
Hundreds of different chats and emails can blur the final goal of any communication. It is very essential to have a way to collaborate with your team after every interaction with tests and the internal systems. A bigger advantage of a tool could be an instant notification of your team without losing track and order of communication.

- Notification about a new issue: aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Notification about changes: aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Comment section under an item: aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Email notifications: aqua +, PractiTest +.

**Visualisation of test results and automation**

![PractiTest’s visualisation](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/1g5jsed2zr29ud3lfvro.jpeg)
_PractiTest’s visualisation_


![aqua’s visualisation of automated tests and their status](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/p2uyvywef420ywipuhtg.png)
_aqua’s visualisation of automated tests and their status_

The option to review and analyse the results without the need to read into the actual data can accelerate the further adjusting of a testing strategy. The same story with automation. I understand that automation is an inseparable part of any QA measures. Visualisation of test automation makes it more clear to understand where improvements are needed. As well the team would operate more efficient by having a visual presentation of a workflow — the itinerary they can follow on their way to success and goals achievement.

- Visualisation of test results: aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Visualisation of test automation: aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Visualisation of workflow: aqua +, PractiTest -.

**Regulatory compliance**
Data security is always essential and strictly superintended by regulators. Whether a company decides to place its applications in the cloud or on the premises, they need to make sure that their data is secured 100%.

“According to on-premise, companies are required to manage and maintain their servers internally, especially when backups and upgrades are being performed.” by [Gräbner-Omahna IT Consulting](https://www.ao-itc.de/software-on-premise-or-on-the-cloud/).

That’s why regulated companies prefer to store their data within hosted servers entirely avoiding compromising by the third parties.

Providing the opportunity to use a test management tool on-premise version in this situation is a must-have.

- On-premise: aqua +, PractiTest -;
- SaaS (Cloud): aqua +, PractiTest +;
- Advanced support for support compliance: aqua +, PractiTest -.

Both tools can rightfully be called effective solutions for software development and quality assurance departments. Not inferior to each other as provided functions, they are nevertheless created for different purposes.

aqua ALM solves problems and covers the requirements for quality testing of digital products and applications and helps the management team obtain regulatory approval, comply with the requirements, and manage the entire company’s work using one tool.

PractiTest, in turn, is designed rather only for test management and bugs tracking. Even having ALM functionality in its functionality, I cannot say that it is as effective and easily manageable as aqua. The interfaces need to be improved, and some of the lags present in the system need to be addressed.

I can also note that the pricing policy of both instruments is almost identical, so when choosing between them, you can not rely on the financial factor. The only thing we would like to note is that no matter which tool you choose, it is advisable to order a demo and a trial period to experience a significant difference in test management.

More differences between aqua and PractiTest you can find in [this](https://aqua-cloud.io/aqua-vs-practitest/) review.