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."Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"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."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"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."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"I would like the solution to include monitoring capacity."
"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."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
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.
