This Tuskr vs Qase comparison explains what each free and paid tier includes, how seat types and AI credits differ, how automation results get in and what moves if you switch, so you know which plan you would actually buy. Both tools sell cloud test management per named seat with a five-seat minimum; Tuskr caps projects, cases and API calls by tier while Qase Teams removes caps and includes SAML SSO at $420 per seat per year.
Most comparisons stop at per-seat sticker price and skip where SSO, audit logs and unlimited volume sit. Qase includes SSO in Teams but meters AI credits and holds MFA, audit logs and SCIM for Enterprise, while Tuskr publishes audit trail and 2FA at Business ($150) and SSO only on Enterprise ($290), so five Enterprise seats cost $1,450 a year against $2,100 for Qase Teams. The sections below line up tier gates with your login model, automation sources and repository size before you trial either product.
Tuskr vs Qase: Which Test Management Tool Should You Choose?
-
Seat price versus automation depth. Tuskr lists $90–$290 per user per year with volume caps on every tier. Qase Teams is $420 per seat per year with SSO and unlimited projects, then meters AI credits.
-
Security features gate in opposite order. Qase includes SSO in Teams; audit logs and MFA need Enterprise. Tuskr publishes audit trail and 2FA at Business ($150) and SSO only on Enterprise ($290).
Tuskr vs Qase Side-by-Side Comparison
| Tuskr | Qase | |
|---|---|---|
| Best For | Manual-first teams that want a low seat price, fit inside published caps, and want audit trail or 2FA at a published price | Automation-heavy teams that want framework reporters, an MCP server, SSO in the first paid tier and no volume caps |
| Starting Paid Price | Team: $90 per user per year, or $9 per user per month billed monthly | Teams: $35 per user per month billed annually, $42 billed monthly |
| Paid-Seat Minimum | 5 users on every paid plan | 5 regular seats on Teams |
| Free Plan | Up to 5 users, 5 projects, 1K test cases, 25 requirements, 5 custom fields; no API, webhooks, custom run statuses, audit trail, 2FA or SSO | Up to 4 users, 2 projects, 2 active runs, 30-day history, API (5k results/month), MCP server; no custom fields, requirements or integrations |
| Trial | 15 days, no credit card | 14 days of Teams, no credit card |
| Read-Only Seats | None published; every login is a named licence | Collaborator seats at $10 per user per month (Teams and Enterprise add-on); billing users are free |
| AI Billing | No credit allowance or AI limit published | 2,000 credits/month on Teams, 4,000 on Enterprise, $0.40 per extra credit; none on Free |
| SSO / Audit Log | SSO on Enterprise only ($290); audit trail and 2FA on Business ($150) and Enterprise | SAML SSO from Teams; audit logs, MFA, IP restriction and SCIM on quote-only Enterprise |
| Deployment | Cloud only (Google Cloud, United States) | Cloud only (AWS US-East-2); dedicated VPC cluster as an Enterprise add-on |
| Jira Integration | Integration, not a Jira app: creates Jira issues from failed tests and flags retests when the bug is fixed | Jira Cloud app plus a Jira Server/Data Center plugin; links cases, runs and defects with two-way defect status sync |
| API | REST, trial and paid plans only; 1,200–4,800 calls/hour by plan, 10 requests/second hard cap | REST on every plan; 150 / 600 / 1,000 requests per minute |
| Automation Support | npm CLI that imports JUnit XML; how-tos for Playwright and Cypress | Reporters for 20+ frameworks; qasectl CLI accepts JUnit, Allure, XCTest and Qase formats |
| Key Differentiator | Every tier has a public price, including the ones with audit trail, 2FA and SSO | Test-as-code reporters, MCP server and AI that converts manual cases to scripts |
| Main Limitation | Every tier has caps (250 projects, 250K test cases, 500 requirements at the top), and SSO needs the top tier | $420 per seat per year at list price; audit logs and MFA have no public price |
Quick verdict
For a small team choosing mainly on seat cost, which describes most people comparing these two, Tuskr is the default: every tier lists below Qase Teams, including the $290 Enterprise tier that SSO requires. The exception is the team built around automation, or one that needs SSO for nearly as many read-only stakeholders as testers. For those, Qase is the better buy.
Key Differences Between Tuskr and Qase
- The same five-seat minimum produces a $450 bill on one and $2,100 on the other. Both vendors set five seats as the floor for paid use, so the smallest paid purchase compares directly. Five Tuskr Team licences at $90 per user per year cost $450; five Qase Teams seats at $35 per user per month, billed annually, cost $2,100 a year. Billed month to month, the rates are $9 and $42 per user. If SSO is mandatory the gap narrows, because Tuskr offers it only on Enterprise: five licences at $290 cost $1,450 a year against Qase’s $2,100.
- Qase puts SSO in its first paid tier and audit logs behind a quote; Tuskr does the reverse. Qase Teams includes SAML 2.0 SSO and role-based access control. Multi-workspace SSO, SCIM, MFA, IP restriction and audit logs sit in Enterprise, which is quote-only. Tuskr’s pricing page shows audit trail and two-factor authentication from Business at $150 per user per year, and single sign-on on Enterprise alone at $290. So a policy that demands only SSO costs $420 per seat on Qase or $290 on Tuskr. A policy that demands an audit trail or two-factor authentication costs $150 per seat on Tuskr, while Qase gives no public number. Tuskr does not document SCIM, and IP restrictions sit in its roadmap backlog.
- The two free plans include nearly opposite things. Tuskr Free covers 5 users, 5 projects, 1K test cases, 25 requirements, 5 custom fields and 20 test plans per project. Its plan card marks custom run statuses, webhooks, API calls, audit trail, 2FA and SSO as not included. Qase Free covers 4 users and 2 projects, with API access (5k submitted results a month) and an MCP server. Its plan table marks custom fields, requirements, dashboards, integrations, webhooks, role-based access and SSO as not included, and run data older than 30 days becomes inaccessible. Manual testers get more from Tuskr Free; an automation engineer gets more from Qase Free.
- Qase sells a $10 read-only seat; Tuskr licences every login the same way. Qase has three licence types: regular users count toward the subscription, collaborators cost $10 per user per month and can view and comment but not edit, and billing users cost nothing. The licence type overrides any role. Tuskr describes “named licenses”, where five licences means five users with login accounts, and publishes no cheaper seat type. A collaborator costs $120 a year, still above a full Tuskr Team licence at $90. The order flips when SSO is required: ten testers plus ten read-only stakeholders cost $5,400 on Qase Teams and $5,800 on Tuskr Enterprise. At list prices Qase becomes cheaper once read-only users exceed about three-quarters of the tester count.
- Qase reports from inside the test framework; Tuskr imports a JUnit XML file afterwards. Qase publishes reporters for Playwright, Cypress, Jest, pytest, Robot Framework, JUnit 5, TestNG, PHPUnit and others. They create the run, send results in batches and can auto-create test cases from code annotations. Its Go CLI, qasectl, also uploads JUnit, Allure, XCTest and Qase-format files. Tuskr documents one route: an npm CLI whose import-junit-xml command loads JUnit XML and creates runs, suites, sections and cases as needed. Any framework that emits JUnit XML works with both tools. Test-as-code, where case metadata lives in annotations, is documented only by Qase.
What Are Tuskr and Qase?
Tuskr Cloud Test Management
Tuskr is a cloud test management tool organised as projects, test suites, sections and test cases. It covers test runs with bulk result entry, test plans, requirements, built-in issue tracking, burndown dashboards and an AI assistant. Its documented workflow centres on manual test runs, with automated results arriving through a JUnit XML CLI. Tuskr is hosted on Google Cloud in the United States and publishes no self-hosted option; its security page states ISO 27001 certification and a SOC 2 audit. Its distinguishing trait here is packaging: four count-based tiers with public prices, audit trail and 2FA from Business, and SSO on Enterprise.
Qase Cloud Test Management
Qase is a cloud test management platform that “brings your CI results, automated tests, and manual runs into one place”. The repository supports shared steps, parameters, Gherkin-style steps and pull-request-style test case review, and runs take environments, configurations and milestones. Qase runs on AWS in US-East-2 and lists SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3 and ISO/IEC 27001:2022. Its main differentiator is the automation and AI layer: reporters for 20+ frameworks, a query language (QQL), an MCP server and AI that converts manual cases into scripts, sold across Free, Teams and Enterprise plans.
Tuskr vs Qase: Feature-by-Feature Comparison
AI: A Monthly Credit Pool Against No Published Meter
Qase’s AI does more and is billed by use. It generates test cases from Jira or GitHub issues, scores automation readiness, converts manual cases into Playwright, Cypress or Selenium scripts, and runs them in Qase’s cloud. All of it draws on one credit pool that resets monthly without rollover. Overage is off by default; once enabled, it bills $0.40 per credit. Tuskr’s AI assistant creates and bulk-edits test cases, builds test runs and analyses trends, with no credit allowance on its pricing page. Both vendors state that customer data is not used to train models; Tuskr names OpenAI as its processor.
API Throughput and CI Connections
Qase is the stronger choice for pipelines that write results constantly. Teams allows 600 requests per minute, with a 100-request burst per 10 seconds. Tuskr Team allows 1,200 calls per hour with a hard cap of 10 requests per second, rising to 4,800 per hour on Enterprise. Qase can also trigger GitHub, GitLab, Jenkins and Bitbucket pipelines from its own UI, and documents an MCP server on every plan. Tuskr documents no named CI plugins or MCP server; its command-line importer runs in any CI that can run npm.
Authoring Controls: Review, Shared Steps and Parameters
Qase ships more authoring structure today. Test case review, a Teams feature, can be made mandatory per project with a required approval count. Shared steps are on every plan, and parameters expand one case into up to 1,024 combinations per run. Tuskr’s roadmap lists “Test Case Approval” as in progress, and Tuskr does not document shared steps or parameterised cases. Tuskr’s recycle bin is wider: deleted projects, suites, sections and runs can all be restored. Qase’s trash bin holds test cases only, and deleted runs, plans and defects are removed immediately.
Requirements Traceability
Both link requirements to test cases, with different ceilings. Tuskr updates a requirement’s status from linked test results and caps requirements at 25, 100, 250 or 500 by plan. Its External ID field can hold a Jira key, which is a reference rather than a documented sync. Qase supports a parent-child hierarchy of epics, features and user stories, and its traceability matrix reads requirements from Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Notion and Confluence; both features start at Teams.
Documented Limits: Counts on Tuskr, a History Window on Qase
Tuskr’s tiers are defined by counts. Team allows 50 projects, 50K test cases and 100 requirements; Enterprise ends at 250 projects, 250K test cases and 500 requirements. Qase Teams lists “Unlimited projects, test runs & storage” and limits time instead: result history stays readable for 2 years on Teams and 30 days on Free. A large requirements set hits Tuskr’s ceiling first; an audit of three-year-old results hits the Qase Teams window.
Tuskr vs Qase Pricing Comparison
Prices below were read from each vendor’s public pricing page on 17 September 2026, in USD.
| Tuskr | Qase | |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | Up to 5 users; 5 projects, 1K test cases, 1 GB, 25 requirements | Up to 4 users; 2 projects, 500 MB, 30-day history |
| Trial | 15 days, no credit card | 14 days of Teams, no credit card |
| Entry Paid | Team: $90 per user per year, or $9 per user per month | Teams: $35 per user per month billed annually ($420 a year), or $42 billed monthly |
| Mid | Business: $150 per user per year, or $15 per month; adds audit trail and 2FA | None |
| Top | Enterprise: $290 per user per year, or $29 per month; adds SSO | Enterprise: custom pricing, annual, invoice or ACH; adds audit logs, MFA, SCIM |
| Minimum Seats | 5 on all paid plans | 5 regular seats on Teams |
| Read-Only Seats | None published | $10 per user per month |
| AI | No allowance published | 2,000 / 4,000 credits a month; $0.40 per extra credit |
| Payment | Credit card only | Card on Teams; bank transfer or ACH on Enterprise |
Both charge per named seat, so the structural difference in Tuskr vs Qase pricing is what a higher tier buys. On Tuskr, moving up buys headroom and then security: Business adds audit trail and 2FA, Enterprise adds SSO. On Qase, Teams already includes SSO and removes the volume limits, and Enterprise buys audit logs, MFA, SCIM, unlimited retention and support terms. Month to month, Tuskr is $9, $15 or $29 per user against Qase’s $42.
| Scenario (list price, annual billing, per year) | Tuskr | Qase |
|---|---|---|
| 5 users, no SSO | $450 (Team) | $2,100 (Teams) |
| 10 users, no SSO | $900 (Team) | $4,200 (Teams) |
| 5 users, SSO required | $1,450 (Enterprise) | $2,100 (Teams) |
| 25 users, SSO required | $7,250 (Enterprise) | $10,500 (Teams) |
| 10 testers plus 10 read-only stakeholders, SSO required | $5,800 (20 Enterprise licences) | $5,400 (10 seats, 10 collaborators) |
| 5 users, audit trail and 2FA required | $750 (Business) | Not published (Enterprise quote) |
List-price arithmetic, not a quote
One caveat on the Tuskr column: a team needing more than 250 projects, 250K test cases or 500 requirements has no published tier to buy.
Pros and Cons of Tuskr vs Qase
Tuskr
Pros
- $90 to $290 per user per year, below Qase Teams’ $420 on every tier
- Audit trail and 2FA at a published $150 per user per year
- Free plan includes custom fields, 25 requirements and test plans for up to 5 users
- No AI credit meter or overage charge published
Cons
- Every tier is capped, ending at 250 projects, 250K test cases and 500 requirements
- SSO only on the $290 Enterprise tier; no API, webhooks or custom run statuses on Free
- JUnit XML is the only documented result format; no framework reporters or MCP server documented
- Test case approval is unshipped, and import is CSV-only at 1,000 cases per batch
Qase
Pros
- Reporters for 20+ frameworks plus a CLI for JUnit, Allure and XCTest files
- SAML SSO and unlimited projects, runs and storage from Teams
- $10 collaborator seats and free billing users
- Test case review, shared steps, parameters and an MCP server are shipping features
Cons
- $420 per seat per year at list price, with a five-seat minimum
- AI credits expire monthly, and extra credits cost $0.40 each
- Audit logs, MFA, IP restriction and SCIM require quote-only Enterprise
- Free plan excludes custom fields, requirements, dashboards and integrations, and keeps 30 days of history
Who Should Use Tuskr vs Qase?
Choose Tuskr If…
- You have five or more testers and seat price decides the purchase
- You need an audit trail or 2FA at a published price rather than a quote
- You need SSO and nearly everyone who logs in is a tester, so $290 per seat beats $420
- Testing is mostly manual, with automated results arriving as JUnit XML
Choose Qase If…
- Your SDETs want reporters inside Playwright, pytest, TestNG or Jest, with cases created from code
- You plan to connect Claude, Cursor or another MCP client to your test repository
- You need SSO and have almost as many read-only stakeholders as testers
- You need mandatory test case review, shared steps or parameterised cases now
- You will pass 250K test cases or 500 requirements, or need SCIM, IP restriction or invoice billing
Look elsewhere if…
You need on-premises hosting or test cases stored as Jira issues.
Migration and Switching Considerations
Moving from Qase to Tuskr runs through CSV. Qase exports a repository or a single suite as CSV, XLS, XML, JSON, PDF or HTML. Tuskr imports UTF-8 CSV only, at most 1,000 test cases per file, creating suites and sections on the fly and accepting custom fields. Tuskr’s direct migrator covers TestRail alone, so runs and result history do not come across from Qase.
The reverse also runs through CSV. Qase’s importer lists 18 source types, including TestRail, Xray, Zephyr, qTest and PractiTest; Tuskr is not among them, so the route is Qase’s own CSV format. Qase sells migration services as an Enterprise add-on. Neither documents the other’s column layout, so run a small test import first.
Is Tuskr the Right Fit for Your Team?
What settles this pairing is where your results come from and who logs in. If results stream from Playwright or pytest reporters, if AI agents should reach the repository through an MCP server, or if test case changes must pass a review gate today, Qase documents those and Tuskr does not. Tuskr also does not suit repositories past 250K test cases or 500 requirements, or buyers who need SCIM, invoice billing or SSO for a large read-only audience.
Tuskr suits the team of testers that wants every price on the page before it talks to anyone. Five Team licences cost $450 a year, or $9 per user billed monthly. Business adds audit trail and two-factor authentication at $150 per user per year. Enterprise adds single sign-on at $290, which is $1,450 a year for five people against $2,100 for Qase Teams. The published plan limits show each tier’s caps, and AI test case creation carries no credit meter. See also how Tuskr positions itself as a Qase alternative.
Free plan for up to 5 users and a 15-day trial
Try the paid plans free with 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.
Tuskr or Qase: Which Is Better?
Manual Testing, Seat Cost Leads: Tuskr
It costs $90 to $290 per user per year against $420, sells audit trail and 2FA at $150 where Qase quotes, and still undercuts Qase with SSO when nearly every user is a tester.
Automation-First: Qase
Framework reporters, CI triggers, an MCP server and manual-to-script AI conversion have no documented Tuskr equivalent, and Qase Teams allows 600 API requests a minute against Tuskr Team’s 1,200 an hour.
Large Org or Many Read-Only Users: Qase
No project or test case caps, mandatory review, SCIM, IP restriction and $10 collaborator seats. See also the Qase vs Testmo comparison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Tuskr cheaper than Qase?
Usually, at list price. Tuskr runs from $90 (Team) to $290 (Enterprise) per user per year, or $9 to $29 billed monthly. Qase Teams is $35 per user per month billed annually ($420 a year), or $42 monthly. The exception is an SSO requirement combined with many read-only users: ten testers plus ten viewers cost $5,400 on Qase Teams and $5,800 on Tuskr Enterprise.
Which free plan includes API access, Tuskr or Qase?
Qase. Its Free plan includes the REST API at 150 requests per minute and up to 5k API-submitted test results a month, plus the MCP server. Tuskr’s Free plan lists 0 API calls per hour and no webhooks; its API is available only during the trial and on paid plans, starting at 1,200 calls per hour on Team.
Can Tuskr and Qase both import JUnit XML from a CI pipeline?
Yes. Tuskr’s npm CLI has an import-junit-xml command that uploads JUnit XML with attachments and creates runs, suites and cases as needed. Qase’s qasectl CLI uploads results with --format junit and also accepts Allure, XCTest and Qase formats. JUnit XML is Tuskr’s only documented format; Qase adds reporters for 20+ frameworks.
Which Tuskr and Qase plans include single sign-on?
Qase includes SAML 2.0 SSO for a single workspace in Teams at $35 per user per month; multi-workspace SSO and SCIM need Enterprise. Tuskr includes SSO only in Enterprise at $290 per user per year, using SAML 2.0 with Google, Okta, Azure AD and OneLogin. For five users that is $1,450 a year on Tuskr and $2,100 on Qase. Neither free plan includes SSO.
Can Tuskr or Qase be self-hosted?
Neither vendor publishes a self-hosted or on-premises edition. Tuskr is hosted on Google Cloud in the United States. Qase runs on AWS in US-East-2 and offers a dedicated cluster, described as a separate Virtual Private Cloud installation, as an Enterprise add-on.
