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.
"It's a complete solution that has everything you need."
"I really like the Microsoft DevOps survey."
"It's a great product for the CI/CD process."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure DevOps for me is its robust version control functionality, which is critical for our workflow."
"The solution is easy to implement and easy to use."
"You get a complete solution with Azure DevOps. You can do everything in one place, starting from requirement gathering until you release the product. It is a reliable, scalable, and handy product."
"The tool's most efficient feature is the integration of its services in one place. It is an easy-to-use product that improves productivity. Microsoft Azure DevOps is also user-friendly. Its documentation is clear and can be found on Google."
"The solution is good for everything, including end-to-end planning and its deployment and testing."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"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."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"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 do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The documentation isn't straightforward."
"The ability to extend work items was more flexible than it is now. Talking version control, one of our customers had some issues because they found it very difficult to manage more than 1000 repositories for one team project."
"I think Azure DevOps could improve the traceability or business intelligence about the execution of DevOps processes."
"The test management section needs to be improved."
"The main issue that I have is the connection speed. Sometimes, the response is too slow. I am based in Taiwan, and I am not sure if it is because of broadband or something else. Its initial configuration is also a little bit difficult."
"The solution's roadmap and Gantt charts could be improved."
"Azure DevOps is set up more for development and less for testing. If it is set up correctly, everyone can use it better, but it was set up from a development point of view, which means it is lacking in what I need from a testing perspective. Just like any other tool, it depends on how it is configured. I am not happy with the way it is set up. It is configured more from a development side, and it doesn't necessarily cater to all the other areas that probably need to use it, such as testing data, etc."
"The solution can be improved by having better integration with other cloud platforms."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"The performance could be faster."
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"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."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 123 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 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 "Good support, helpful management capabilities, and great Kanban boards". 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 ". 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 OpenText UFT One. 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.
