We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"What we call the LoadRunner analysis is the most useful aspect of the solution."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"The product is very user-friendly."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"IP Spoofing can be done using Performance Center."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"More real-time monitoring should be available for the system under test."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"It's not that popular on the cloud."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"On the newer versions, I think the bleeding edge is still being worked on."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Akamai CloudTest.
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.
