We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Oracle Application Testing Suite 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."Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"The function test feature is valuable."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"We find the front-end interface of this solution to be very user-friendly, meaning easy navigation even for novice users."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite does encounter some lag. When I am trying to record something, the tool gets stuck."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite could improve by offering desktop-based application automation. It is lacking in this area at the moment."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Oracle Application Testing Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 9th in Performance Testing Tools with 24 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Oracle Application Testing Suite 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 Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and Katalon Studio.
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.
