We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText UFT One 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."Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"Defect management is very good."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"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."
"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."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The performance could be faster."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT One 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 OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Oracle Application Testing 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.
