Tuskr Reviews & Product Details

I appreciate how Tuskr's intuitive interface makes test planning and organization straightforward. The platform excels at centralizing my test case management, providing me with clear visibility into test execution progress, and generating comprehensive reports that help me quickly identify trends and quality issues. I especially value its ability to seamlessly handle both my manual and automated testing workflows, combined with excellent search and filtering capabilities that significantly reduce my administrative overhead. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I found the learning curve steeper than expected when configuring automated test workflows, particularly for users less familiar with automation frameworks. I also experienced occasional delays when generating reports for large test datasets, and I wish the platform offered more granular permission controls for team collaboration. Additionally, the mobile app's functionality is limited compared to the web version, which can be restrictive when I need to check test status on the go. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like about Tuskr how straight and easy it is to use for managing test cases. The interface is neat and clean, and it doesn’t take much to find what you need. Creating the test cases, organizing them, and running it feels smooth and doesn’t gets complicated. The dashboards and reports are also helpful because they give a clear picture and vision of testing progress without needing extra or external tools. Overall it makes the testing process much easier to handle. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Tuskr works goot, but there are a few things that could get better. Some parts of the interface feel a bit complicated, and certain actions take more steps than they should. The search can be slow at times, especially when you’re with a large number of test cases. I also feel the integrations could be a little more flexible and easy. None of these are deal-breakers, but they are small areas where the tool could improve. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I appreciate how easy it is to navigate Tuskr. Creating and organizing test cases is simple, and the interface remains unobtrusive throughout the process. The dashboards are particularly useful, allowing me to quickly identify completed tasks and those that still require attention. Overall, Tuskr streamlines the entire testing process and makes it much smoother. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

At times, the test case hierarchy can seem somewhat inflexible, especially when I'm working with larger groups of tests. I also find that some of the more advanced options require a bit of time to understand. These aren't major issues, but they do tend to slow me down occasionally. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like best about Tuskr is how it brings structure and clarity to our entire QA process. As an IT Admin, I regularly use it to manage internal testing for application updates and infrastructure changes. The interface is clean and easy to work with setting up test cases, assigning them to team members and tracking their execution is very straightforward.

The Jira integration is one of the biggest advantages. It keeps our testing and development teams in perfect sync by automatically updating bug statuses and linking test cases to issues. This reduces a lot of manual follow-ups and confusion during release cycles. I also appreciate how Tuskr allows me to monitor real time progress and generate quick reports for management or post deployment reviews. Overall, it has made our QA workflow faster, more transparent and better organized. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Nothing significant so far. It's reliable,fast and the customer support team is quick to assist whenever we have questions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

For manual testers, Tuskr offers a calm and uncluttered workspace, making it easy to add steps, expected results, and evidence in a thoughtful, unhurried way. This approach has noticeably improved the quality of our test design. The feature that allows us to quickly clone and modify similar cases is especially valuable when we need to support multiple platforms or different versions of the same workflow. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Teams looking for highly advanced visual analytics straight out of the box may find the reporting features more practical than visually impressive, and could find themselves needing to export data for more complex analysis and charting. Furthermore, organizations operating in enterprise environments with intricate identity and tooling setups might prefer more built-in, one-click integrations, rather than having to rely on custom scripts or connectors. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I use Tuskr to manage our test cases, keeping everything organized and in one place for both manual and automated testing. I like that it connects test results with our CI/CD pipeline and links issues with our bug-tracking tools. What I like most is how simple and well-organized it is, with smooth integrations with CI/CD tools and Jira. The automation rules save a lot of time by automatically updating test statuses, keeping everything in sync without extra manual effort. I also really like the API and webhook support, which makes it easy to connect Tuskr with other tools and automate workflows. The overall UI is clean and easy to navigate, so managing and updating test cases doesn’t feel heavy or time-consuming. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One area that could be improved is reporting and analytics, which feels a bit basic for larger projects. Also, while most features are easy to use, some advanced automation options could be explained better in the documentation to make setup even smoother. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like how simple and focused Tuskr is, especially when working with Playwright. It doesn’t interfere with how I write my automation. I appreciate that Tuskr acts as a clean layer on top where I can neatly organize my test cases, track executions, and review results. The UI is straightforward, making it quick and effortless to update Playwright run statuses, attach logs or screenshots, and check overall test progress. I also found the initial setup pretty easy, as the UI is intuitive and we were able to start tracking Playwright runs in Tuskr without any confusion or steep learning curve. It’s a great tool for keeping test cases and executions organized without getting in the way of automation. Tuskr fits nicely into my workflow by acting as the central place to manage test cases and executions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One thing that could definitely be improved is deeper automation integration. Since I’m very hands-on with Playwright, it would be great if Tuskr could automatically pull execution results directly from Playwright runs or CI pipelines instead of relying on manual updates. Right now, after running tests, I still need to update statuses and attach reports myself. Also, for large Playwright suites, some advanced filtering or analytics around flaky tests and historical failures would be really helpful. Tuskr works well as a test management tool, but adding more automation-friendly features would make it even better for heavy Playwright users like me. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I mainly use Tuskr to manage and track our test cases, especially for automation projects. Tuskr keeps manual and automated test cases in one place, making coordination with the team much easier. It offers a simple and clean interface which makes creating and organizing test cases feel quick rather than heavy or complicated. The ability to easily integrate Tuskr into our automation workflow, especially when updating results after running tests through CI tools like Jenkins, is also beneficial. Furthermore, the initial setup was quite easy, and the team adapted quickly without needing much training. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One thing that could be better is deeper automation support. Since Tuskr doesn’t run automated tests, a tighter link with tools like Selenium or Playwright would save some manual effort when updating results. Also, reporting options feel a bit basic, so more customizable or detailed reports would definitely help, especially for larger projects. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Tuskr's greatest strength is how easily our team was able to adopt it. Even those who were accustomed to using spreadsheets made the transition within just a few days, thanks to its intuitive layout and straightforward workflows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

For organizations that require robust, out-of-the-box integration with highly customized CI/CD pipelines, some additional scripting and connector configuration may be necessary to achieve the desired setup. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really like how Tuskr has a clean and simple interface that’s easy to navigate without getting lost in clutter. I appreciate being able to track test executions and experiment setups in real time, which keeps the whole team on the same page. The way Tuskr organizes test cases, environments, and results makes managing multiple platforms much easier. The dashboards in Tuskr give a clear overview without needing to dig into each tool individually. I find that combination of clarity and centralization really stands out. Real-time tracking is particularly useful because I can monitor experiments and test executions as they happen, which saves a lot of time and helps the team catch issues faster, making Tuskr feel like a reliable hub for coordinating all our testing work. Additionally, the initial setup of Tuskr was straightforward and intuitive, so even team members who aren’t very technical found it quick to pick up, which was great. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

While Tuskr is really helpful, there are a few areas that could be better. For one, it doesn’t directly execute tests or integrate deeply with tools like Selenium or Jenkins, so you still need to switch between platforms to actually run tests. Some reporting features feel a bit basic, and I wish there were more advanced analytics or trend tracking built in. Also, configuring complex experiment setups can sometimes be a bit clunky. It’s not a dealbreaker, but these improvements would make it feel more like a full testing lab rather than just a management hub. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.