We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM Octane, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, and TFS 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."The defect management gives us full-fledged capabilities for handling defects, including capturing the details of the defects and even screenshotting the defect cases. The defect management is comprehensive."
"We like Micro Focus ALM Octane because its performance is okay, and its stability is okay, so we use it a lot. The platform is easy to use."
"An improvement on previous versions because it comes as preconfigured as possible."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the reports. We are able to do customization."
"Octane creates a gentle approach to Agile-based projects."
"A valuable feature is the pipeline, so that we can now connect to Jenkins and then have all the results from testing, from external, in the tool, so that we can see the whole approach from there. Also, We can work with labels so we have better filtering solutions than in ALM. And it's much smarter and leaner to use than ALM."
"The user experience is a lot better than any tool that I have used before. Overall, it is great. It has a smooth interface, which is very user-friendly. It makes it easier to work together and have more transparency and customization, which is very good."
"It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"Work item management integration with source control."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is integration."
"The most valuable feature from my point of view is project management, which includes user stories as well as task management."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"The initial setup is fairly easy."
"The most valuable features are test case writing and bug tracking."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"The product's requirements management feature needs enhancement in terms of functionality."
"Though Micro Focus ALM Octane doesn't have much of a bug, it lacks integration with some solutions. For example, my company has fairly new software, but it can't be integrated with Micro Focus ALM Octane, so integration with other software, particularly with less popular software, could be improved. Micro Focus ALM Octane also requires a lot of resources during its setup, and I find this another area for improvement. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the ability to customize the interface, especially when doing a manual test."
"Also, while there is a Requirements Module in Octane, it is very plain. It's okay to have some requirements described there, but it's not really following the whole BDD approach. I would like to have more features for requirements in there."
"We’d like to see Platform One/Iron Bank compliant containers."
"We have some requests to beef up the manual testing abilities and the ability to report on testing progress. All the basics are there, but there's an issue of maintainability. For example... once you plan a test and it creates a run, more particularly a suite run, you can't edit the suite run afterward... That that is not realistic with how people work. Mistakes are made and people are humans and we change our minds about things. So the tool needs to allow for a bit more flexibility in that testing area, as well as some better widgets to report on progress."
"The limitation of Octane is that we can't do a release outside of the sprint. We can only plan the release in the sprint. With Agile and JIRA tools, we can plan the release outside the sprint and do a global release of all the projects from the sprint."
"Development of extensions or connections to GitHub actions could be better. Better integration with Azure DevOps would also help."
"Globally, I don't see many major points of improvement. It's mostly plenty of little things, and it's weird to me that they are not in the product yet. They are really details, but they're annoying details... Today, in the tool, we've got plenty of assets we can handle, like requirements, user storage, defects, tasks and so on. And to all of those elements, we can add comments. We can add comments to any asset in Octane but not to tasks. It's just impossible to understand why it's not available for the tasks because it's available everywhere else. Similarly, for attachments, you can attach files absolutely everywhere except on automated runs, which is, again, awkward. I don't understand why on this element, in particular, you cannot do it. It's little touches like that."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"The manageability and performance of the product are areas of concern where improvements are required."
"The price could be cheaper."
"TFS is scalable with different Microsoft tools for test management but it is not scalable with other third-party tools."
"The tool needs improvement in stability."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"The solution is stable but could improve."
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"The solution should have better dashboards."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
