We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Microsoft Azure Devops based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure DevOps is the winner in this comparison. According to reviews, Azure Devops is a powerful solution that is easier to set up, and less expensive than Quality Center.
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"There are great automation tools."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps has been very good for creating pipelines, and all the solutions for creating task management for developers and for the business."
"Azure is an advantage when working with other Microsoft solutions."
"The creation of test plans is valuable and I like the reporting features."
"Most of the features are very valuable for us, especially the source code control and task management."
"Setting up Azure DevOps was straightforward. It's easy to use the default templates. Everything is under our control, so it's simple to implement new requirements."
"I like the cloud infrastructure of Microsoft Azure DevOps."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"I can't think of anything I would like to improve, since I don't have complete knowledge of the platform yet. I'm sure that as I gain more experience, I will understand it better. The price could maybe be cheaper, but I'm sure I'll have more ideas as to improvements and additional features once I've used it more."
"This product would be improved if the helpdesk were included."
"We are facing some problems because the capacity can only be measured within a project. It cannot be measured across multiple projects. So, the reporting needs to be enhanced, and there should be more graphs to be able to easily give the upper management insights about all the employees from different departments. It will be helpful for employee management. Currently, the managers over here are using Power BI for insights because the functionality of Azure DevOps Boards is not enough. So, we have to export the data into another visualization tool and get the results."
"They do very frequent releases, there's a complete change in UI kind of stuff. Sometimes it feels like they change it too often."
"When converting to DevOps, it was difficult to map."
"We are facing a lot of issues in the development of containerized solutions. We are facing a lot of challenges in this area. They could make the process simpler."
"Compared to JIRA, I think Azure DevOps is missing some management elements, like some reporting features. It would be helpful if some things were clearer when we're adding attributes. For instance, sometimes we want to add some categories or attributes, and it's not so easy."
"The main issue that I have is the connection speed. Sometimes, the response is too slow. I am based in Taiwan, and I am not sure if it is because of broadband or something else. Its initial configuration is also a little bit difficult."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 127 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
