We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"It is very user-friendly."
"Team Foundation Server (TFS) is easy to use, and we have a complete trail and traceability. We also like the access control part."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"As far as queries are concerned, creating, grading, or customizing the queries as a primary requirement is very easy to do."
"The most valuable feature from my point of view is project management, which includes user stories as well as task management."
"This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile."
"It's user friendly. We haven't had any issues so far. It's flexible. If we need something, we can always contact the owner in our headquarters to make a configuration."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"The performance could be faster."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"TFS's CI/CD, project pipelines, and management development could be improved."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"Currently, we are looking for a solution with which we can incorporate third-party development sites or third-party project teams into the system. Because it is on-premise, it is a bit problematic because we need to have a VPN or something else in the system. A cloud-based solution would be better for us, and that's what we are looking for. Our biggest problem is the external connection, which, of course, is limited by our own IT. It would be good to have some kind of publishing service for this external connection. It might be there, and it might be that our IT is making it impossible for us. Its template editor could be easier to use. Currently, customizing the project templates according to your needs requires some work."
"The dashboard and the customization of dashboards is an area they have to work on."
"We are also using Microsoft Teams. The two products function separately. There is not enough collaboration between Microsoft Teams and TFS."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The manageability and performance of the product are areas of concern where improvements are required."
"TFS on-premise does not support integration with SharePoint Online."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 93 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while TFS is rated 8.0. 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 TFS writes "It is helpful for scheduled releases and enforcing rules, but it should be better at merging changes for multiple developers and retaining the historical information". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Rally Software, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TFS report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors and best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.