We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Microsoft Azure Devops based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure DevOps is the winner in this comparison. According to reviews, Azure Devops is a powerful solution that is easier to set up, and less expensive than Quality Center.
"I like the tracking and that we can monitor our velocity."
"Azure Pipeline and Azure Release are most valuable. I use Azure DevOps through pipeline and release."
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"Typically the sprints themselves and managing the tasks have essentially eliminated our need for reporting."
"The most valuable feature is that we can run integrations with DevOps. From a QA perspective and a testing perspective, we can run those tests and integrate automation tools. Then we can run those tests as part of the deployment process. Every time we are deploying something, it automatically runs all the tests."
"My first impression of DevOps, after using Jira, is that it has a much better, more intuitive, and more user-friendly interface."
"This platform provides a large span of tools and technologies."
"The solution is good for everything, including end-to-end planning and its deployment and testing."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"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 standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"Its setup is quite complex."
"I think Azure DevOps could improve the traceability or business intelligence about the execution of DevOps processes."
"I would like to see DevOps have the ability to give us something with a compatibility or traceability matrix."
"There is only one key area of improvement for me. The new imaging thing is that there is DevOps, where security is important because it is always lasting. So, to integrate security in our DevOps, that would be nice."
"Requirements management is an area that can be improved."
"When comparing with Jira, I find that the task management capabilities in Azure DevOps are not yet fully comprehensive and should be enhanced."
"We would like some bidirectional synchronization. It's the requirement if you want to analyze it to software requirements, et cetera. That's something that most of the tools aren't that good at."
"Compared to JIRA, I think Azure DevOps is missing some management elements, like some reporting features. It would be helpful if some things were clearer when we're adding attributes. For instance, sometimes we want to add some categories or attributes, and it's not so easy."
"The performance could be faster."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"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."
"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."
"The QA needs improvement."
"Is not very user-friendly."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 24 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "High level protection, scales well, but more customer feedback updates needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "It is a stable solution, and customer service is its most valuable feature". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis Tosca. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.