We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Integration with other HPE products."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"By 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."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"The stability is very good."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"The tool is flexible and easy to manage. We use it since it is scalable and easy to use. It integrates with solutions."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"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."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"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 is an expensive tool."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"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 price could be improved."
"The data flow can be improved."
"The performance could be faster."
"It could be available for multiple platforms and other operating systems like Mac with a native port."
"The solution should be cheaper."
"The solution's documentation could be improved because it keeps disappearing from the solution."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
"The vendor must release a lightweight version of the solution."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 5th in Test Management Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and TestRail. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
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.
