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."As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"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."
"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."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"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."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"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 way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
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.
