We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Parasoft Development Testing Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"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 provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"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."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"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."
"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."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"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."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
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 Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 15th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 4 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6. 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 Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Test Management Tools vendors.
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.