We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Microsoft Azure Devops based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure DevOps is the winner in this comparison. According to reviews, Azure Devops is a powerful solution that is easier to set up, and less expensive than Quality Center.
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it saves time."
"The build and release management features are valuable."
"There are a lot of helpful features available for tracking dependencies."
"My first impression of DevOps, after using Jira, is that it has a much better, more intuitive, and more user-friendly interface."
"Azure enables us to create a staging environment through to a production environment in an easier way and then get the code and run that."
"Stable and scalable solution for work planning and code collaboration. It's fast, and it offers a good user experience."
"Great project management feature and Git-based repository."
"Two of the most valuable features include the integrated project management suite, which consolidates source code and project management in a single location, and its powerful reporting capabilities."
"It has a good response time."
"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."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"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."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"Reporting could be better. We would like to see how many applications are onboarded in DevOps and in which phase they are. We would like to know for how many applications we have done only the repository, but we have not yet done the build pipeline or deploy pipeline. Currently, there is no such report. We have to figure it out ourselves. There is no way to check how many applications are completing their build pipelines, how many applications are completing their deploy pipeline, how many are ready to use, and how many pipelines are working."
"It's too technical sometimes because it's meant for network developers. The CI/CD pipelines are not very easy to manage because it requires a lot of input. So it could be easier to manage."
"Reporting across multiple projects could be improved."
"Its testing features are limited and can be improved a little more. They should provide more options from the testing and build perspective. Currently, we have to use a third-party product for testing. It would be great if it has more than one testing tool."
"If they could build up requirement traceability metrics, then it would be great."
"I would like to see DevOps have the ability to give us something with a compatibility or traceability matrix."
"I would like to see new features added."
"Compared to JIRA, I think Azure DevOps is missing some management elements, like some reporting features. It would be helpful if some things were clearer when we're adding attributes. For instance, sometimes we want to add some categories or attributes, and it's not so easy."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"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."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 126 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
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.