OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Parasoft Development Testing Platform comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects.""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.""The stability is very good.""I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions.""Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects.""Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies.""The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pros →

"The most valuable feature is code coverage.""It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."

More Parasoft Development Testing Platform Pros →

Cons
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution.""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.""The QA needs improvement.""ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers.""There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift.""Is not very user-friendly.""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.""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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Cons →

"The solution's speed has room for improvement.""Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."

More Parasoft Development Testing Platform Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
  • "If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
  • "For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
  • "The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
  • "HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
  • "Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
  • "Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
  • "I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
  • More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:HP ALM and Jira can be easily integrated with the aid of a third-party Integration Solution To help you select the right integration approach and tool, you should first define your integration… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
    Top Answer:It was expensive for us. For the first two weeks, we had to employ people now and then as the system needed to be more accurate. It cost us a lot of money. I rate the solution's pricing as a seven or… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is code coverage.
    Top Answer:The solution's speed has room for improvement.
    Top Answer:We use the Parasoft Development Testing Platform to verify code coverage for static analysis in our unit tests.
    Ranking
    Views
    8,911
    Comparisons
    3,853
    Reviews
    16
    Average Words per Review
    429
    Rating
    7.4
    Views
    200
    Comparisons
    154
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    217
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
    Parasoft Concerto, Parasoft DTP
    Learn More
    Overview
    OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

    Parasoft DTP aggregates the results from across testing practices, providing intelligent and continuous monitoring of the testing outcomes for greater visibility into what is working — and what isn’t.  Includes:

    - Comprehensive Reports & Dashboards

    - Preconfigured compliance reporting

    - Customized Advanced Analytics

    - Interactive Navigation of Results

    - Traceability

    Sample Customers
    Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
    General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, AAI Textron, Boeing, Fidelity, Johnson & Johnson, CIBC, Penske, Thales, Dell, 
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Insurance Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization54%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Computer Software Company5%
    Manufacturing Company5%
    No Data Available
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business7%
    Midsize Enterprise57%
    Large Enterprise36%
    No Data Available
    Buyer's Guide
    Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: March 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 15th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 4 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6. 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 Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer.

    See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Test Management Tools vendors.

    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.