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 Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."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."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"The product can scale."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"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."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
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 OpenText Silk Test.
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.
