We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zephyr Enterprise 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."The integration with UFT is nice."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"The solution does its job well."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"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."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"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."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"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."
"We faced some errors while uploading the test cases."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"We have a lot of automation for our products, and we require a utility for its integration with automation. Currently, we have to write this utility ourselves. It would be great if they can provide such a utility."
"Security needs improvement to protect customer information better."
"Zephyr Enterprise needs to redesign the reporting."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Zephyr Enterprise is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Zephyr Enterprise is rated 7.8. 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 Zephyr Enterprise writes "Highly stable solution and meets users' needs". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText UFT One, whereas Zephyr Enterprise is most compared with TestRail, Tricentis Tosca, TFS, Tricentis qTest and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Zephyr Enterprise 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.