We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zephyr Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Defect management is very good."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"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."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"The solution does its job well."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"The performance could be faster."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"We faced some errors while uploading the test cases."
"We have a lot of automation for our products, and we require a utility for its integration with automation. Currently, we have to write this utility ourselves. It would be great if they can provide such a utility."
"Zephyr Enterprise needs to redesign the reporting."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"Security needs improvement to protect customer information better."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Zephyr Enterprise is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Zephyr Enterprise is rated 7.8. 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 Zephyr Enterprise writes "Highly stable solution and meets users' needs". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText UFT One, whereas Zephyr Enterprise is most compared with TestRail, Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, TFS and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Zephyr Enterprise report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.