We performed a comparison between CucumberStudio and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software."The data table that helps in converting a single script to multiple test cases is very helpful."
"The best thing is that a person without knowledge about the program can easily understand what happened in our testing process."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"The product can scale."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"The reporting needs to be improved."
"I think it would be better if we could also do the reporting with CucumberStudio."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"It is pricey."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"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."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
CucumberStudio is ranked 27th in Rapid Application Development Software with 8 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. CucumberStudio is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CucumberStudio writes "An easy -to -use scalable cloud-based solution which needs some improvement with programming automation and stability". 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 ". CucumberStudio is most compared with GitHub CoPilot, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.
