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."Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"The product can scale."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"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."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
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.