We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Oracle Application Testing Suite 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."The integration with UFT is nice."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"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."
"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."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The solution is scalable."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"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."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 9th in Performance Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 7.8. 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 Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio and Ranorex Studio.
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.
