We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Tricentis qTest 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.
"The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"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 most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."
"Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"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."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"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."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"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."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest 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 Tricentis qTest writes "Puts all our test cases in one location where everyone can see them. qTest also allows the segregation of different types of Testing". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise, TFS and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Tricentis qTest report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools 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.
