We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"We are using it just for load testing. We are using its free version, and it is scalable."
"We find the load testing feature valuable."
"The distributed load testing is very good with Apache JMeter."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"It's a powerful tool that is open source."
"The recording and playback functionality is helpful."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"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."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"Currently, the integration pipeline is implemented by using Jenkins or a similar tool platform. These are continuous integration tools. As far as I know, integration is done by using custom scripts. It would be good if the integration with a continuous integration pipeline, like Jenkins or Hudson, can be done out of the box without using a script."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"Modeling a test is difficult. If you don't have much knowledge, you won't be able to do it easily. Testing APIs is also difficult."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"The user interface is a little bit tricky."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"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."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"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."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
We monitor all Performance Testing 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.
