We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"A lot of things are valuable. It is free. It has a lot of features, such as report generation and integration with CI/CD, which makes it very competitive with the other paid solutions available in the market. It is a good solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"Due to process automation, I don't have to prepare reports, making it the perfect solution."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"Defect management is very good."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"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."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"JMeter should be more stable. Every time there is a new release coming up, a lot of its older functionalities or the new functionalities that are brought in are not very well-documented. It should be documented properly, and there should be proper use cases."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"The only thing is the learning curve. It's high."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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 ". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
We monitor all Performance Testing 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.
