We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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."This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"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."
"It is stable and reliable."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"My favorite feature in LoadRunner Professional is its ability to group scripts under separate IDs."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"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."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"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."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester.
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.
