Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache JMeter vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Apache JMeter, a cost-effective tool, excels in scalability, CICD integration, and ROI, rivaling HP Performance Center, with minimal investment.
Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText ALM boosts testing efficiency, improving management visibility, cost savings, traceability, and mapping test cases to requirements.
With Apache JMeter, I have gained great statistics for performance and server metrics.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Apache JMeter's community-driven support provides helpful resources, but it's not as immediate or thorough as commercial alternatives.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's customer service varies, with effective high-level support but delays and mixed expertise at lower levels.
The support for Apache JMeter is excellent.
Apache JMeter has strong support through its vast Java-based community on platforms like Stack Overflow.
Apache JMeter relies more on community support.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Apache JMeter is scalable but struggles with high loads, requiring distributed testing and complex configurations for extensive usage.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM Quality Center is praised for scalability, handling many users well, though licensing and resources can be restrictive.
JMeter is highly scalable, easily handling increased loads through the use of multiple servers.
This restricts the number of users and necessitates increasing load agents or distributing the script across multiple machines.
For backend automation and performance testing with web services, web APIs, and queue management systems, I would rate Apache JMeter's scalability as between eight and nine.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Apache JMeter is generally stable and reliable but may require tuning for optimal performance under high load conditions.
Sentiment score
7.2
Users find OpenText ALM stable, with occasional lags under heavy load, but overall high reliability and uptime with proper setup.
JMeter performs exceptionally well, especially in non-GUI mode, which supports high loads efficiently.
Several necessary features still need improvements, specifically in terms of reports and additional functionalities compared to other commercial tools.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache JMeter faces challenges with SSL recording, performance issues, complex scripting, limited support, and inadequate documentation.
OpenText ALM faces high costs, complex interface, limited browser compatibility, and lacks flexible integration with Agile processes and tools.
Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal.
The tool needs improvements related to client-side metrics, integrating with tools like YSlow or HTTP Watch, and enhancing mobile testing capabilities.
With BlazeMeter, you can view the results in real-time.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
 

Setup Cost

Apache JMeter is a cost-effective, open-source tool for smaller projects, with community support; high-scale testing needs additional tools.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high pricing necessitates strategic financial planning, with costs varying by deployment, user volume, and licensing.
Using JMeter helps us avoid additional costs for high-load testing since it is open-source and allows for unlimited virtual users at no extra cost.
It's a cost-effective solution.
Apache JMeter is completely free as it is open-source.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

Apache JMeter is a flexible, scalable, open-source tool for comprehensive performance testing with robust community support.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for managing manual and automated testing efficiently.
JMeter facilitates scripting capabilities, which include options for Groovy scripts.
It's useful for both the person conducting the test and the higher management, like project managers or senior executives, who may not know about the test.
Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache JMeter
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (1st), Load Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Apache JMeter is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 22.8%, down 24.5% compared to last year.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center, on the other hand, focuses on Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites, holds 5.6% mindshare, up 5.5% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Sreenivasula Mukkamalla - PeerSpot reviewer
Leveraging cost-effective customization with powerful plugins but complexity reduction needed
Apache JMeter offers plugins for reporting and preparing test scenarios. It allows recording to customization, letting you download plugins to connect with databases or external systems. Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools, and its ability to customize and expand is particularly useful. Additionally, its open-source nature makes it cost-effective.
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
852,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Educational Organization
69%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes processes very efficient. We can also export the test cases we create and share t...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: April 2025.
852,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.