We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Parasoft Development Testing Platform, and Rally Software 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."Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"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."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"It documents stories in a way where we do not have to be heavy on front-end requirements, front-end documentation, and front-end workflows."
"The metrics - collecting metrics. It's because we've used several other tools in the past, and they don't give you a full indication of how well your teams are performing, at a portfolio level, at a product level, and at the team level."
"It drives the conversation behind some of the pain points the teams have, based on the data that we're able to pull out of the system. As a result of that, we're able to make better decisions, to become better as a whole."
"Ease of use - I don't even know when a new release is coming and I don't need to because it's so easy to use what's new."
"Agile Central allows us to log one hundred percent of the work we do and it allows for no hidden work, so teams can't go under the radar with what they're working on."
"Having that view into features and roadmap from product to delivery teams, and where they are going, then execute on."
"It is very stable. It has been on the market a long time."
"The Defect feature. In one view you can see all your defects and you can push them into the different releases."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"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."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"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."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"We would like more meaningful, customizable dashboards."
"I think the interface could be a little bit more visual and less wordy. Right now, it seems like it's just a lot of text on the page. In other ticketing systems where it's more visual, you can see more of a flow. But in this one it's more just a list of tasks. I would like to see that a little bit better, especially considering it has so many great organizational features, like child tasks, different artifacts. It would be great to see it presented more appropriately."
"As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing."
"Customization features may not be exposed or unavailable, so people may be looking for them. So, customization is an area people have told me is more desirable."
"More customization capabilities would be helpful. Providing a little bit more structure around how the system should be set up in terms of the hierarchy structure might be helpful as well."
"The product needs to have more integration capabilities."
"I would like to see more Kanban support. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have the features or the layouts that the teams really need to be able to execute their tasks. It almost tries to force you into more of a Scrum style."
"There are few customisation options. For instance, the workflow for story cards cannot be changed out of the box from the standard (Defined, In-Progress, Completed and Accepted)."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
