This Qase vs Testmo comparison shows how per-seat pricing and flat-rate seat blocks flip which tool is cheaper as headcount and SSO needs change. You will get side-by-side pricing scenarios, where SSO and RBAC sit in each plan, plus how free tiers, AI credits, exploratory testing and non-tester access differ. By the end you can pick the cheaper option for your team size and security requirements.
At ten users, Testmo costs $99 a month and Qase costs $350. At twenty-five users who need single sign-on, Testmo costs $599 and Qase costs $875. But at ten users who need single sign-on, the order reverses: Qase is $350 and Testmo is $599. That is not a quirk. Qase charges per seat and puts SSO in its mid tier; Testmo charges a flat rate per block of seats and puts SSO in its top tier. The sections below work through those numbers, then cover free plans, AI, exploratory testing and how each handles people who never write a test.
Qase vs Testmo: Which Test Management Tool Should You Choose?
-
Which tool is cheaper flips twice. Qase bills per seat with SSO in Teams; Testmo bills a flat rate per block of seats and reserves SSO for Enterprise. Fill a Testmo band and Testmo wins; need SSO at a small headcount and Qase wins. Model your own numbers before assuming either is the cheap option.
-
Free plan, AI and exploratory testing diverge. Qase offers a free forever tier and metered AI credits; Testmo has no free plan, includes AI in the price (partly still coming soon) and names exploratory testing on every tier. This page covers pricing, SSO, AI, non-tester access and deployment.
Published by Tuskr, a test management tool. Product facts below come from each vendor's public pricing and product pages. Last verified: 8 September 2026.
Qase vs Testmo Side-by-Side Comparison
| Qase | Testmo | |
|---|---|---|
| Best For | Smaller teams needing SSO, and teams with many read-only stakeholders | Teams of 5-10 on a budget, and teams of 25+ where flat rates win |
| Pricing Model | Per seat | Flat rate per block of seats |
| Entry Paid Price | Teams: $35/user/month billed annually ($42 monthly), 5-seat minimum | Team: $59/month, 5 users included |
| Mid / Upper Tiers | Enterprise: custom pricing | Business from $249/month (15 users); Enterprise from $599/month (25 users) |
| Free Plan | Yes, free forever, up to 4 users | None |
| Trial | 14 days, no credit card | Free trial offered; duration not published |
| Single Sign-On | Included in Teams (SAML 2.0) | Enterprise only |
| Role-Based Access | Included in Teams | Custom RBAC from Business; roles, groups and permissions on all tiers |
| AI | Metered: 2,000/mo credits on Teams, $0.40 per extra credit | Included; test case generation live, two further AI features “Coming soon” |
| MCP Server | Yes, on all plans including Free | Yes, marked Beta on all plans |
| Exploratory Testing | Not named in published materials | First-class feature on all tiers |
| Non-Tester Access | $10 collaborator seats | Unlimited API-only users, from Business |
| Deployment | Cloud; no self-hosted option published | Cloud; Testmo states it does not offer an on-premise edition |
| Main Limitation | Per-seat cost climbs quickly past ~15 users | Team plan stops at 10 users; SSO, 2FA and audit log all require the top tier |
Quick verdict
Choose Testmo if you have ten people or fewer and do not need SSO, or twenty-five plus and want predictable flat billing. Choose Qase if you need SSO or role-based access at a small headcount, or want a free tier to start from.
What Are Qase and Testmo ?
Qase Cloud Test Management
Qase is a cloud test management platform that “unifies automated and manual test results in one system of record”, bringing CI results, automated tests and manual runs into one place. It is sold per seat across a free forever tier, a Teams plan and a custom-priced Enterprise plan, with $10 collaborator seats as an add-on. Its platform spans test management, automated test management, test intelligence, a requirements traceability matrix and an MCP server. Its AI converts manual test cases into Playwright, Cypress or Selenium scripts and generates cases from Jira or GitHub issues. It publishes 35+ integrations, described as “real, bidirectional integrations”, explicitly not “surface-level connectors”.
Testmo AI-Powered Test Management
Testmo describes itself as “AI-powered test management” and leads with “Test management for teams that move fast.” Its central claim is unification: it simplifies test management by unifying manual, automated, exploratory and AI testing so you can cover gaps, manage risk and release with confidence. It is sold as flat monthly tiers with users included in the price rather than billed individually, across Team, Business and Enterprise. Named features include test case management, exploratory testing, test automation, reporting and metrics, milestones, CI pipelines and an official MCP server in beta. Testmo is branded “Testmo By Sembi” and sits in the Sembi portfolio, alongside TestRail and Xray.
Key Differences Between Qase and Testmo
- Per seat versus per block of seats. Qase Teams is $35 per user per month billed annually, with a five-seat minimum, so cost rises in a straight line with headcount. Testmo sells blocks: $59 a month with five users included, $99 at ten, then $249 a month with fifteen users included on Business and $599 with twenty-five included on Enterprise. Below the top of a Testmo band, extra people are effectively free; on Qase every additional tester adds $35. That makes Testmo dramatically cheaper for a full team of ten ($99 against $350), and it now starts lower still, at $59 for five people against Qase's $175 five-seat minimum.
- SSO sits at opposite ends, and that flips the answer. Qase includes SAML 2.0 single sign-on and role-based access control in Teams, its middle plan. Testmo reserves SSO, two-factor enforcement and the complete user audit log for Enterprise, which starts at $599 a month for twenty-five users. So a ten-person team with a security policy requiring SSO pays $350 on Qase and $599 on Testmo, the reverse of the headline comparison. Push that same requirement to 25 people and Testmo wins again at $599 against $875. Model your own headcount before assuming either is the cheap option.
- One has a free plan, the other does not. Qase Free is free forever for up to four full seats, with two projects, 500 MB storage, 30-day test history, 5,000 API results a month and an MCP server. Qase positions it for “students, hobbyists, educators, and non-profits”. Testmo publishes no free plan at all: the entry point is a trial, and its pricing page does not state the duration. If you want to run a real pilot without a purchase order, only one of these two lets you.
- AI is metered by one and bundled by the other. Qase grants AI credits monthly (2,000 on Teams, 4,000 on Enterprise), which “do not roll over to the next month”, with extra credits charged at $0.40 each. They cover generating test cases and converting manual test cases into autotests. Testmo includes Testmo AI on every tier with no published credit metering, and “Generate test cases with AI” is live across all three tiers, but its plan comparison marks “Update test cases with AI” and “Optimize testing with AI” as “Coming soon!” on every tier. So Qase's AI is broader today but consumption-billed; Testmo's is flat-rate but partly forthcoming.
- They solve non-tester access differently. Most QA tools struggle with the people who read results but never write tests. Qase sells $10-per-user-per-month collaborator seats giving “view-and-comment access to runs, reports, and dashboards”, keeping full seats for people who create and run tests. Testmo instead lists “Unlimited API-only users”, which covers machine and integration accounts rather than humans browsing reports, and that entry is a Business-and-above feature, not something the Team plan includes. Human viewers consume a seat from your band either way. If you have a large stakeholder audience, Qase's model is cheaper; if you have many CI and tooling accounts and are already on Business, Testmo's is.
Feature-by-Feature Comparison
How Each Charges, and Where the Models Cross Over
The models are not just different prices, they are different shapes. Qase is linear: five seats cost $175 a month, ten cost $350, twenty-five cost $875, all at the annual rate. Testmo is stepped: $59 covers five users, $99 covers ten, and the Team plan then stops. Testmo's own price list describes it as having “a maximum number of 10 users”. Business picks up at $249 for fifteen users and steps to $399 at twenty-five, $798 at fifty, $1,197 at seventy-five and $1,596 at a hundred. Enterprise starts at $599 for twenty-five and steps in blocks of twenty-five to $4,193 at a hundred and seventy-five. So Testmo rewards filling a band and penalises teams sitting just above one, while Qase never charges for capacity you are not using. Testmo also offers 15% off annual plans, which its billing FAQ specifies as applying to annual Business and Enterprise plans.
Where Single Sign-On and Access Control Sit
This is the single most expensive line item to get wrong. On Qase, SSO and role-based access control arrive together in Teams at $35 per user. On Testmo, roles, groups and permissions are available on every tier, but customizable role-based access control and project administrators arrive at Business, while SSO, two-factor enforcement, the complete user audit log, restricted fields and a sandbox account wait until Enterprise. A small team that must have SSO is therefore pushed to Testmo's most expensive plan (and to its twenty-five-user base price), while remaining on Qase's middle one, which is exactly how a $350 comparison becomes $599.
The Free Tier and Evaluation Path
Qase's free plan is genuinely usable for a small pilot: four seats, two projects, 30-day history and an MCP server, free forever, with a separate 14-day no-credit-card trial of Teams. Testmo offers a free trial but publishes no duration on its pricing page and no free plan, so evaluation has a clock on it that you cannot see in advance. For teams that need to prove value internally before committing budget, that difference matters more than a few dollars per seat.
AI: Metered Credits Versus Included
Qase's credit model makes AI usage a variable cost. Two thousand credits a month sounds generous until a team leans on bulk test-case generation, and unused credits expire rather than banking. The upside is that the capabilities are live now, including manual-to-automation conversion. Testmo's flat-rate AI removes that budgeting question, and AI test-case generation is available on every tier, but two of its three advertised AI capabilities are still marked coming soon everywhere. Judge this on what you intend to use: heavy AI authoring favours knowing your credit burn; light use favours not thinking about it.
Unifying Manual, Exploratory and Automated Testing
Testmo's core pitch is scope. Exploratory testing is a named feature and appears on every pricing tier, sitting alongside manual test case management and unlimited automation results. The argument is that sessions, manual runs and CI results belong in one place. Qase's published positioning centres on manual runs, automated tests and CI results as a single system of record, with a requirements traceability matrix and test intelligence layered on; exploratory testing is not named anywhere on its pricing page or homepage. If structured exploratory sessions are part of your process, Testmo addresses them explicitly.
Deployment and Where Each Falls Short
Neither vendor offers a self-hosted or on-premise option. Testmo says so directly: “Similar to other major modern services, Testmo is a cloud web application… We do not offer an on-premise server edition at this time.” Qase publishes no self-hosted option either, though it lists a dedicated cluster (“Run Qase in a separate Virtual Private Cloud installation”) as an Enterprise add-on. If a regulator or an internal policy requires you to host test data yourself, this comparison is the wrong one for you, and neither product will satisfy it.
Qase Vs Testmo Pricing Plan Comparison
Prices below were read from each vendor's pricing page on 8 September 2026, in USD.
| Qase | Testmo | |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | Free forever: up to 4 users, 2 projects, 500 MB, 30-day history | None |
| Trial | 14 days, no credit card | Offered; duration not published |
| Entry Paid | Teams: $35/user/month annually, $42 monthly, 5-seat minimum | Team: $59/month, 5 users included ($99 at 10 users, the plan maximum) |
| Mid | n/a | Business: from $249/month, 15 users included |
| Top | Enterprise: custom pricing | Enterprise: from $599/month, 25 users included |
| Annual Discount | Built into the $35 rate | 15% off annual Business and Enterprise plans |
| Extra Seats | $35 each; $10 for collaborators | Included until the band fills |
Working the published list prices for five common situations:
| Scenario | Qase | Testmo | Cheaper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 users, no SSO | $175/month | $59/month (Team) | Testmo |
| 10 users, no SSO | $350/month | $99/month (Team) | Testmo |
| 15 users, no SSO | $525/month | $249/month (Business) | Testmo |
| 10 users, SSO required | $350/month | $599/month (Enterprise) | Qase |
| 25 users, SSO required | $875/month | $599/month (Enterprise) | Testmo |
That is list-price arithmetic on the annual Qase rate and Testmo's published monthly rates, not a quote. Testmo's 15% annual discount on Business and Enterprise would reduce those figures further. Qase Enterprise is custom-priced, so teams needing SCIM, MFA, IP restriction or audit logs will not find a public number.
Pros and Cons
Qase
Pros
- Free forever plan for up to 4 users, with an MCP server included
- SSO and role-based access control at the mid tier rather than the top
- $10 collaborator seats keep stakeholder access cheap
- AI converts manual test cases into Playwright, Cypress or Selenium scripts today
- You never pay for seats you are not using
Cons
- Per-seat cost climbs steeply: 25 users is $875/month against Testmo's $599
- AI is metered, credits expire monthly, and overages cost $0.40 each
- Enterprise pricing is custom, so SCIM, MFA and audit logs have no public price
- Exploratory testing is not named in its published materials
- No self-hosted option published
Testmo
Pros
- $59/month for five users and $99 for ten is the cheapest entry point of the two by a wide margin
- Flat bands make budgeting predictable as the team grows
- Exploratory testing is a first-class feature on every tier
- Unlimited automation results on all plans, and AI test-case generation on all plans
- Free Jira Cloud add-on, and 15% off annual Business and Enterprise plans
Cons
- The Team plan stops at 10 users; beyond that you jump to Business at $249
- SSO, two-factor enforcement, the audit log, restricted fields and a sandbox account all require the top tier
- No free plan, and the trial duration is not published
- Two of three advertised AI capabilities are marked “Coming soon” on every tier
- Webhooks are unavailable on Team and marked “Coming Soon” on Business and Enterprise
- Unlimited API-only users starts at Business, not on the entry plan
Who Should Use Qase vs Testmo ?
Choose Qase If…
- You need SSO or role-based access control at a headcount below about 20
- You want a free plan to pilot with before spending anything
- You have many stakeholders who only read results, and the $10 seat suits them
- You want AI that converts manual cases into automation scripts now
- Your team size sits awkwardly just above a Testmo band boundary
Choose Testmo If…
- You have ten testers or fewer and no SSO requirement: $59 to $99/month is hard to beat
- You have 25 or more users and want flat, predictable billing
- Structured exploratory testing is part of how your team works
- You run many CI and integration accounts and are already on Business or above
- You prefer AI included in the price rather than metered by credit
Look elsewhere if…
You need self-hosted or on-premise deployment. Neither vendor offers one (Testmo says so explicitly), so no configuration of either product will meet that requirement.
Migrating from Qase to Testmo (or Vice Versa): What to Consider
Both are modern cloud products with documented APIs, which makes moving between them more tractable than migrating off a legacy ALM.
Qase publishes a REST API on every plan including Free, meters API results (5,000 a month on Free, unlimited above) and rate-limits requests by plan (150/min on Free, 600/min on Teams, 1,000/min on Enterprise), and lists migration services as an Enterprise add-on. Testmo lists a REST API across all tiers and exports to CSV, Excel and JSON, though webhooks are unavailable on Team and marked coming soon on Business and Enterprise.
An export-and-map migration is realistic in either direction. Plan for the usual losses: execution history, attachments, custom field mappings and user attribution rarely survive intact. Note too that Qase's free tier keeps only 30 days of test history, so export before that window closes if you are leaving one.
Where Tuskr Fits
If the arithmetic above has you comparing $350 and $599 a month for a ten-person team, it is worth knowing what the lower end of this market looks like.
Tuskr is cloud-hosted test management priced per user per year: Team at $90, Business at $150 and Enterprise at $290, with a five-user minimum, roughly $7.50 per user per month on the Team plan against Qase's $35. There is a free plan for up to 5 users covering 5 projects, 1,000 test cases and 1 GB of storage, and a 15-day trial with no credit card. Tuskr offers a REST API and webhooks on its paid plans and integrates with Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps, Linear, ClickUp, Monday.com, Trello and Shortcut, plus Slack, Microsoft Teams and Google Chat, with AI that auto-generates test cases, builds test runs by priority and highlights risks and coverage gaps.
Stated plainly: Tuskr publishes no MCP server, so if you want AI assistants reading your test data directly, both tools on this page do that and Tuskr does not. Its API is a paid-plan feature: the free plan is listed at 0 API calls per hour. It is cloud-only, like both of them. And it does not market exploratory testing the way Testmo does. Tuskr suits teams that want per-user pricing at a lower point on the curve.
Lower Per-User Pricing
About $7.50/user/month on Team against Qase's $35, with published annual plans and a five-user minimum.
Broad Integrations
Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps and more, plus Slack, Teams and Google Chat. See Tuskr integrations.
Free Plan & Fast Trial
Free for up to 5 users and a 15-day trial. See current pricing.
See how Tuskr fits your QA workflow
One product, published pricing, and a free plan for up to 5 users no credit card required.
Tuskr gives us a well-structured test case database that makes quality coverage visible and measurable. When our Azure pipeline completes a run, the results are automatically sent through the Playwright integration and uploaded to Tuskr as a Test Run, giving our team a clear and centralized view of test execution and product quality.
Qase or Testmo: Which Is Better ?
~10 Users, No SSO: Testmo Wins
$99 a month against $350 for the same headcount, with exploratory testing and unlimited automation results included. At five people the gap is wider still: $59 against Qase's $175 five-seat minimum.
Small Team + SSO: Qase Wins
SSO and role-based access come with Teams at $35 per seat, so ten users cost $350 against $599 for Testmo Enterprise, and four users can start free.
25+ Users: Testmo Leads Again
$599 a month covers a full band including SSO, where Qase would bill $875 for the same 25 seats. Above that, exploratory testing versus collaborator seats decides more than price.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which test management tool is better, Qase or Testmo?
Neither is better outright, and nothing either vendor publishes supports a single verdict. The answer turns on headcount and whether you need single sign-on, because that is where the published prices cross over. At ten users without SSO, Testmo costs $99 a month against Qase's $350. At ten users with SSO, Qase costs $350 against Testmo's $599, because Testmo reserves SSO for Enterprise while Qase includes it in Teams. At twenty-five users with SSO, Testmo leads again at $599 against $875. Away from price, Qase is the only one of the two with a free forever plan, and Testmo is the only one that names exploratory testing as a feature on every tier.
Is Qase or Testmo easier to use for QA teams?
Neither vendor publishes usability research, and this page does not cite third-party review scores, so there is no evidence base for calling either one easier. What you can verify is how cheaply you can find out for yourself. Qase has a free forever plan for up to four users plus a 14-day Teams trial “with no obligation or credit card”. Testmo publishes no free plan, and its pricing page does not state a trial duration. Both are browser-based cloud products with nothing to install: Testmo states “We do not offer an on-premise server edition at this time”, and Qase publishes no self-hosted option either. Run both against your own test cases before committing.
Does Qase or Testmo integrate with Jira?
Both do. Qase publishes 35+ integrations, described as “real, bidirectional integrations”, explicitly not “surface-level connectors”, and names Jira among them alongside Trello, ClickUp, Asana, Linear, GitHub, Azure and Slack. Its AI also generates structured test cases from Jira or GitHub issues with traceability labelling. One caveat: integrations are not included on Qase's Free plan. Testmo lists Jira, GitHub and GitLab on all three of its tiers, and adds a “Free Jira Cloud add-on” on every tier.
What are the key differences between Qase and Testmo?
Five differences decide this comparison:
- Pricing shape. Qase charges per seat: $35 per user per month billed annually, $42 monthly, with a five-seat minimum. Testmo charges a flat rate per block of seats: $59 for five users, $99 for ten, $249 with fifteen included on Business and $599 with twenty-five included on Enterprise.
- Where SSO sits. Qase includes SAML 2.0 single sign-on and role-based access control in its middle Teams tier. Testmo reserves SSO, two-factor enforcement and the complete user audit log for Enterprise.
- The free tier. Qase Free is free forever for up to four users, with two projects, 500 MB storage and 30-day test history. Testmo publishes no free plan.
- How AI is billed. Qase meters AI with credits, 2,000 a month on Teams and 4,000 on Enterprise, which do not roll over, with extra credits at $0.40 each. Testmo includes its AI in the plan price, though two of its three advertised AI capabilities are marked “Coming soon!” on every tier.
- Non-tester access. Qase sells $10-per-user-per-month collaborator seats for “view-and-comment access to runs, reports, and dashboards”. Testmo lists unlimited API-only users, but only from Business upwards.
What is the best alternative to Qase or Testmo?
That depends on what is pushing you off them. If it is deployment, note that neither product on this page can be self-hosted, so any alternative is a different conversation entirely. If it is per-seat cost, Tuskr, which publishes this page, is priced at $90 per user per year on Team, roughly $7.50 per user per month against Qase's $35, with a free plan for up to five users and a 15-day trial with no credit card. Stated plainly, Tuskr is also cloud-only, publishes no MCP server, and gives its Free plan no API access at all, so it does not solve a self-hosting or agent-access requirement. And if a named, first-class exploratory testing feature is what you are missing, Testmo is the tool on this page that publishes one.
Can I migrate my test cases from Qase to Testmo (or vice versa)?
Neither vendor publishes a migration tool or an importer for the other, so plan an export-and-map project through their APIs. Both publish a REST API: Testmo lists one on all three tiers, and Qase applies published rate limits of 150 requests per minute on Free, 600 on Teams and 1,000 on Enterprise, with API-submitted test results capped at 5,000 a month on the Free plan. Two practical cautions. Qase's Free plan retains only 30 days of test history, so export before that window closes if you are leaving it. And Qase lists migration services as an Enterprise add-on, the only paid migration help either vendor publishes. Expect execution history, attachments, custom field mappings and user attribution to need explicit handling.
