We performed a comparison between Eggplant Manager and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"We did see a massive return on investment from using Eggplant."
"Good text reading ability."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"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."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"The solution would crash from time to time."
"They need to update the Linux. I think it's kind of an outdated Java Swing application."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"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."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
More Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Eggplant Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 2 reviews while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 27 reviews. Eggplant Manager is rated 9.6, while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Eggplant Manager writes "Probably the best GUI automation tool out there". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "We can have multiple users execute tests independently on their own computers because the UFT scripts are stored online". Eggplant Manager is most compared with Ranorex Studio, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, Zephyr Enterprise, Sealights and TestRail by Gurock, whereas Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Micro Focus UFT One and Tricentis qTest. See our Eggplant Manager vs. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.
