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."Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"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."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"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 tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The product has many features."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"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."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"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."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
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 8th 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.
