We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"It is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"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."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
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.
