Compare Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Tricentis qTest

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 14 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 8.6, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "We can have multiple users execute tests independently on their own computers because the UFT scripts are stored online". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis qTest writes "Provides a central point of reference for tracking bugs and failures, who owns the issue and its status". Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with JIRA, Micro Focus ALM Octane and TFS, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, TFS and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. See our Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Tricentis qTest report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
397,983 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needsBy 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.From reporting to team management, everything is better now.The AI and functionality interface are useful.It has a good response time.It improved productivity and increased levels of internal data security.The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed.This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well.The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes.The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story.The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself.The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good.Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer.qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location.I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed...

Read more »

Cons
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.We would like to have support for agile development.ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach.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.They should focus on giving greater value to the IoT and social networks.There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic.It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on.The QA needs improvement.

Read more »

You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency.As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users.The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented.The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique.We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge.I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me.I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual.Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive.We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us.It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution.I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily.

Read more »

We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support.We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that.We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license.It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market.Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year.The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount.For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
397,983 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
Views
24,067
Comparisons
14,257
Reviews
14
Average Words per Review
249
Avg. Rating
8.6
4th
Views
5,373
Comparisons
3,108
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
2,048
Avg. Rating
8.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Also Known As
HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALMqTest
Learn
Micro Focus
Tricentis
Overview

Micro Focus Application Lifecycle Management software (ALM), is a unified platform that helps teams prioritize, align and focus their project activities, provides actionable insight, and fosters the re-use of assets from requirements through development, testing, and readiness for delivery. 

Built on best practices, an extensible architecture and centralized repository, Micro Focus ALM is one of the first unified, technology-agnostic application management systems available now; integrating out-of-the-box with over 30 open source and competitive industry products.

Micro Focus’s ALM suite provides flexible solutions and deployment options to meet your needs and scale with you as you grow.

QASymphony is a leading provider of enterprise test case management, test analytics and exploratory testing solutions for agile development and QA teams. Our solutions help companies create better software by improving speed, efficiency and collaboration during the testing process.
Offer
Learn more about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Sample Customers
Specsavers, Cardinal Health, KMD, TurkcellAmazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm20%
Comms Service Provider14%
Insurance Company8%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company36%
Comms Service Provider10%
Manufacturing Company10%
Financial Services Firm8%
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company29%
Insurance Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
Financial Services Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company31%
Comms Service Provider17%
Insurance Company13%
Manufacturing Company9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise75%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business5%
Midsize Enterprise2%
Large Enterprise94%
REVIEWERS
Small Business8%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise67%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
397,983 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.