CucumberStudio vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SmartBear Logo
46 views|21 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
8,832 views|3,763 comparisons
90% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CucumberStudio and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software.
To learn more, read our detailed Rapid Application Development Software Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,334 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The best thing is that a person without knowledge about the program can easily understand what happened in our testing process.""The data table that helps in converting a single script to multiple test cases is very helpful."

More CucumberStudio Pros →

"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area.""As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool.""The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs.""It provides visibility on release status and readiness.""ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements.""Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable.""Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution.""I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pros →

Cons
"I think it would be better if we could also do the reporting with CucumberStudio.""The reporting needs to be improved."

More CucumberStudio Cons →

"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.""There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective.""It is not a scalable solution.""I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable.""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 integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology.""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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
  • "If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
  • "For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
  • "The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
  • "HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
  • "Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
  • "Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
  • "I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
  • More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
    769,334 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The best thing is that a person without knowledge about the program can easily understand what happened in our testing process.
    Top Answer:Presently, when I work with Selenium, I need CucumberStudio just to make my project readable to other people, and for reporting, I use Maven. I think it would be better if we could also do the… more »
    Top Answer:I recommend the solution as it's easy to use. I rate the solution seven out of ten.
    Top Answer:HP ALM and Jira can be easily integrated with the aid of a third-party Integration Solution To help you select the right integration approach and tool, you should first define your integration… more »
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:It was expensive for us. For the first two weeks, we had to employ people now and then as the system needed to be more accurate. It cost us a lot of money. I rate the solution's pricing as a seven or… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    46
    Comparisons
    21
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    378
    Rating
    7.0
    Views
    8,832
    Comparisons
    3,763
    Reviews
    16
    Average Words per Review
    429
    Rating
    7.4
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Hiptest
    Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
    Learn More
    SmartBear
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Formerly HipTest: CucumberStudio is the leading collaboration platform for BDD - an easy-to-use tool to define ideas, test code, and learn in production from real-time insight.

    OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.
    Sample Customers
    Cisco, Cardinal Health, Intuit, Smartbox, Accenture, Deliveroo
    Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Educational Organization10%
    Comms Service Provider7%
    Financial Services Firm7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Insurance Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization54%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Computer Software Company6%
    Manufacturing Company5%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise55%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business7%
    Midsize Enterprise57%
    Large Enterprise36%
    Buyer's Guide
    Rapid Application Development Software
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software. Updated: April 2024.
    769,334 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    CucumberStudio is ranked 28th in Rapid Application Development Software with 8 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. CucumberStudio is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CucumberStudio writes "An easy -to -use scalable cloud-based solution which needs some improvement with programming automation and stability". 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 ". CucumberStudio is most compared with GitHub CoPilot, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.

    We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.