We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"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."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"I think the number one feature everybody likes is the capability to easily generate virtual users as well as the reporting."
"Support is nice, quick, and responsive."
"Creating the script is very easy and user friendly."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."
"The performance could be faster."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"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."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"The QA needs improvement."
"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."
"After they get over the acquisition, the first improvement is going to be tailoring it for their existing stack of other products. How would LoadRunner work for Documentum? How would it work for Business Network? How would it work for other apps? They can have a pre-package or a guide because they are all in the same family as opposed to being outside."
"For such an experienced team as mine, who have been with the product for over ten years, sometimes working with technical support is not that easy."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"LoadRunner Enterprise's reporting should be quicker, easier, and more flexible."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise needs to add more features for Citrix performance-based applications testing. This was one of the challenges we observed. Additionally, we experienced some APIs challenges."
"While the stability is generally good, there are a few strange issues that crop up unexpectedly which affect consistent use of the product."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and TestRail, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Akamai CloudTest.
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.
