We performed a comparison between Atlassian ALM and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."
"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."
"The most valuable feature is the Scrum board."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."
"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."
"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"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."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Atlassian ALM is ranked 16th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Atlassian ALM is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Atlassian ALM writes "Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes". 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 ". Atlassian ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, TFS, IBM Rational ALM and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
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.