We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"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."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"It's simple to set up."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"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 However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool.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."
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"The QA needs improvement."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
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 OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText Silk Test.
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.
