We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zeenyx AscentialTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."Integration with other HPE products."
"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."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"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."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"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."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"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."
"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 25th in Test Management Tools with 13 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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 Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Selenium HQ.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.
