We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The stability is very good."
"It has a good response time."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"It is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"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."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"The performance could be faster."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 72 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
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.
