Jira is so sleek and you probably use it for development anyway, so why not run your testing with a Jira plugin? Zephyr is a popular and proven choice among the many options on the market. But can it keep up a dedicated solution?
aqua offers free AI-enhanced testing
aqua keeps On-Premise
aqua has better reporting
AI is a rapidly developing tech, so we will look at cutting-edge tech rather than the baseline. Hereās what you should expect from an AI-powered test management solution:
Vendors of independent test management systems have much more control over new features. This includes adopting the latest AI tech, something that Jira-powered tools will struggle to do unless Atlassian shows interest. aqua offers an AI Copilot powered by GPT, the large language model behind ChatGPT. Unlike the free chatbot, aquaās solution reads the context of your project and understands your test suite. You can use it to save up to 20 hours/week per employee by auto-creating tests based on requirements, updating them, and letting the AI prioritise your test suite.
Test management is the main reason we are looking at these two tools. You should consider various aspects of handling test cases as well as traceability-minded features. These include:
Apart from lacking AI functionality, Zephyr is a really close match for aqua when it comes to test management. As is common with Jira plugins for testing, test organisation usually suffers when not using a dedicated solution. Zephyr fares worse than some other plugin competitors, as they do not try to adapt Jira workflows and do not offer any themselves. There are also no shared views because Jira does not offer them.
Most tools rely on automation via common third-party tools that QA specialists have been using for over a decade. The experience is much better when your test management solution has native integrations for industry-leading tools. REST API support is a must if you do not want to be at the vendorās mercy for integrations.
Both Zephyr and aqua take the third-party route when it comes to integrations. This approach means a lower barrier of entry for less experienced specialists, and you can leverage extra complex solutions via REST API anyway. The main difference comes in the number of native integrations: Zephyr brings just a fraction of aqua offers.
Tools differ in how much money they request upfront and what scaling looks like. Some criteria here are:
aqua and Zephyr both offer monthly billing, which may be an afterthought for large companies but helps small companies a lot. There are no setup costs associated with either. On the other hand, the Jira plugin Zephyr requires Jira licences to match aqua functionality. All licences are full price as well.
On-Premise deployment is a must in many industries, yet vendors wonāt explicitly say if they donāt offer it. Depending on your security policies and scale, deploying in a non-vendor Cloud is a beneficial option too.
aqua supports both Cloud and On-Premise deployment. As a nice compromise between security and costs, you can even host a cloud version of aqua on a third-party server. Zephyr has been offering the same, but not for long: Jira is ceasing active support for On-Premise starting from December 31, 2023. Zephyr has already stopped selling On-Premise licences for their Jira plugin.
QA dashboards serve two vital purposes. They help the QA team track their progress, but they also make other teams aware of potential bottlenecks. At a minimum, you should be able to include any data and share dashboards with the team.
Zephyr has an extensive suite of dashboard widgets, but it is still restricted by Jiraās boundaries. You canāt take full advantage of your workspaceās entire data. There are also no KPI alerts that would notify you about a deviation in metrics, which would have saved the time on constantly checking dashboards. aqua offers both.
Reporting is important for both internal and external stakeholders. The goal here is to get what you need with as little or as much effort as possible. When a tool offers both a template library and rich customisation, that is a good start.
aqua has a fully customisable reports wizard to leverage and organise any data. You can even add external images and texts, too. There is a lot of automation with self-updating diagrams and custom scripts to pull and transform data depending on conditions entered by your specialists.
On the other hand, Zephyr has template-based reporting only. They claim to have 26 templates, but they are essentially 26 tracked metrics rather than 26 combinations of any metric. If QA reporting is a major consideration, aqua is a much better choice. Note that QA will eventually become the key stage to optimise, and good reports help a lot.
Precise user management is essential when working on multiple projects and/or working with external specialists. It will also save you a lot of pain from running crowd testing in the same test management solution.
aqua and Zephyr offer the same granularity when it comes to permissions. You can create custom roles as well as assign unique permissions to individual users. Both tools offer relevant QA-specific permissions, such as editing and executing test cases.
This is not a hard requirement, but you may be interested in a test management solution that also handles the entire product lifecycle. This is a great money saver as you need licences from fewer vendors, and the synergy should save you some hours as well.
aqua is a test management solution that can also handle the entire product lifecycle. Zephyr is the missing QA link for Jira to do the same. Ultimately, both aqua and Zephyr give you the seamless 4-tools-in-1 experience and the cost savings that come with that.
Here are a few things people like and dislike about both tools.
āI was surprised to find such a comprehensive and mature tool for test management in the German market without having taken it seriously beforehand.ā
Jƶrg GroĆmann
Head of Development at Bank 11
āThe fact that its interface has a fairly simple and straightforward design is excellent for us to use without any problems, the fact that it is not necessary to be an expert programming to use it is also quite practical when making your use. There are many errors that can affect the performance and performance of the application. It is enough to report to the customer service team and they quickly solve it, however I still believe that they should work better to prevent one from noticing that type of failure.ā
Federico D.
Software Development Engineer at an Enterprise (>1000 emp.)
āThe reporting is meaningful and provides a good basis for decisions. After the employees have used aqua, they recognize the added value very quickly.ā
Thomas Haeske
Head of Organisation/IT at Berlin Hyp
āBulk editing of test scripts isn't always the easiest. Can clutter Jira without sufficient configuration knowledge of Jira.ā
Liz H.
Test Manager at a small business (<50 emp.)
āManual test cases are easily automated with aqua. Seamless integration with test automation tools helps here.ā
Jƶrn-Hendrick Sƶrensen
Test Manager at KBA
āI dislike how hard it is to import multiple tests. The importer into Jira is inconsistent and not user friendly. I never feel confident that it will import the first time I try it.ā
A G2 reviewer
mid-sized Retail company (50ā1000 emp.)
āI was surprised to find such a comprehensive and mature tool for test management in the German market without having taken it seriously beforehand.ā
Jƶrg GroĆmann
Head of Development at Bank 11
āThe reporting is meaningful and provides a good basis for decisions. After the employees have used aqua, they recognize the added value very quickly.ā
Thomas Haeske
Head of Organisation/IT at Berlin Hyp
āManual test cases are easily automated with aqua. Seamless integration with test automation tools helps here.ā
Jƶrn-Hendrick Sƶrensen
Test Manager at KBA
āThe fact that its interface has a fairly simple and straightforward design is excellent for us to use without any problems, the fact that it is not necessary to be an expert programming to use it is also quite practical when making your use. There are many errors that can affect the performance and performance of the application. It is enough to report to the customer service team and they quickly solve it, however I still believe that they should work better to prevent one from noticing that type of failure.ā
Federico D.
Software Development Engineer at an Enterprise (>1000 emp.)
āBulk editing of test scripts isn't always the easiest. Can clutter Jira without sufficient configuration knowledge of Jira.ā
Liz H.
Test Manager at a small business (<50 emp.)
āI dislike how hard it is to import multiple tests. The importer into Jira is inconsistent and not user friendly. I never feel confident that it will import the first time I try it.ā
A G2 reviewer
mid-sized Retail company (50ā1000 emp.)
aqua is a veteran test management solution that can work as both a Jira plugin and standalone solution while not costing extra. Zephyr is a plugin that tries to make Jira a test management system. While the effort is admirable, you still run into several Jira limitations and feature omissions from Zephyr. This comparison of aqua and Zephyr testing tools confirms that you can run QA in Jira, but it works best with a dedicated TMS that offers a Jira plugin.