We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"It is highly scalable and reusable. It is easy for team members to maintain and use with confidence. There is great versatility."
"The scripting methodology is easy to learn. It is easy to maintain because it is presented in a simple, narrative way. You don't need to know programming." "It has reduced our test maintenance time by more than 50 percent because we don't have to do manual test processes. We have saved over 150 man-hours monthly. It has increased our delivery times. We went from 200 man-hours down (three weeks work time frame) to approximately 40 man-hours (three days work time frame)."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"The Worksoft Capture feature is most valuable. For example, if you are creating a sales order in SAP, you do not need to go to each field and do everything. You do not need to write code for each and every line. You can just turn on the Worksoft Capture feature and manually perform your actions. It will capture all manual actions, and it will give you the steps. It will write the steps for you."
"The biggest feature is the fact that it's codeless. It takes away the problem of finding people with the correct programming language, since there are multiple such languages. It saves time in introducing people to the solution because they don't need programming knowledge, they just need to be able to think logically. This makes it vastly usable by more people who are not even acquainted with IT at all."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"We are mainly using it for the SAP application, and for the SAP application, if you don't have any experience with automation tools, after a few training sessions, you can easily automate the scripts. That's because no specific programming language is used. All resources that I have are specifically SAP resources. They are not from the automation background, but after gaining the knowledge, they are able to develop a script, or when there is any issue while doing regression testing, they are at least able to understand the issue, such as whether the issue is in the code or data."
"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."
"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"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."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier."
"Reportings are not user-friendly."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants."
"The definitions for the objects need to be automated. They need to be recognized automatically by Worksoft Certify instead of changing them back and forth manually. This is also something that Worksoft is currently working on."
"The technical support comes on, and says, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me."
"We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
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 Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. 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 Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite.
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.
