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 initial setup is very easy."
"Technical support has been excellent. On that side, Microsoft is very good. The customer support of Microsoft has really improved this past year. On the cloud side also we are very satisfied because it offers very good support."
"I really like the Microsoft DevOps survey."
"It's very user-friendly, and the documentation is good. The most valuable feature is backlog item creation, where we pick features and other things. The burndown chart created for projects to be maintained by the development teams is also useful."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use and performance."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure DevOps for me is its robust version control functionality, which is critical for our workflow."
"You get a complete solution with Azure DevOps. You can do everything in one place, starting from requirement gathering until you release the product. It is a reliable, scalable, and handy product."
"My team likes the integration that Microsoft Azure DevOps has with GitHub and Microsoft Teams. The solution is well integrated with other Microsoft tools in one place, it is very good."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"The product can scale."
"Being more technology-agnostic through ease of integration would be beneficial."
"The administrative capabilities of the tool need a huge improvement. Its Wiki and reporting also need a lot of improvement. Their support can also be better."
"The communication could work better, especially for the development team."
"Improving the metrics that are readily available on the dashboard would be very helpful."
"Reporting could be better. We would like to see how many applications are onboarded in DevOps and in which phase they are. We would like to know for how many applications we have done only the repository, but we have not yet done the build pipeline or deploy pipeline. Currently, there is no such report. We have to figure it out ourselves. There is no way to check how many applications are completing their build pipelines, how many applications are completing their deploy pipeline, how many are ready to use, and how many pipelines are working."
"The test management section needs to be improved."
"I would like to see improvement in the metrics and the dependencies."
"It should be easier to manage Licenses especially because it's in the cloud."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
"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."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"It is pricey."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
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.