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."The setup is pretty straightforward."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"The product can scale."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"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."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"The tool is flexible and easy to manage. We use it since it is scalable and easy to use. It integrates with solutions."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"User-friendly ID and direct integration with GitHub are the most valuable."
"The solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"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."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"The performance could be faster."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"I would like to see more integration in the solution."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"It would be great to support other languages and applications, and that is one of the things we can improve."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"The solution should be cheaper."
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.
