"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"Defect management is very good."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"I like the fact that there is built-in Power BI. Both are Microsoft tools. So, you can incorporate dashboard capabilities."
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"Before using this solution, we had to deploy our applications, from pre-production to production, manually."
"The most valuable feature is the complete integration between test cases, pipelines, and issue management."
"The most valuable feature is that it's fully integrated, where we have a single place to do everything that we need."
"It is easy to use. The shared repository is useful. Everything is in one environment."
"The most valuable feature is that it brings order to our projects, and we know the status of each one at every moment."
"The solution is easy to implement and easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"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."
"I think that they have some menus there that are not very well placed."
"The testing environment and different pipelining concepts can be improved."
"It would be great if I could integrate with a human resource type of software that could control timesheets."
"They should expand it from just a PC, software, or server development platform to other kinds of software or engineering systems so that it is not necessarily built around a normal PC with a server. I would like to see the ability to write my own scripts in my own compiled program or online. Right now, there are things that you can do in the user interface, but you can't do them programmatically and vice versa. I want to see them both. If I can do it in a script, I should be able to do it from the user interface, and if I can do it in the user interface, I should be able to do it in a script."
"All of the tests of the applications are done on the mobile or web interface and it could be improved."
"With an ecosystem that has been up and running for some time, you won't have the full-flexibility that you would have with a new ecosystem."
"There are some areas that need improvement such as tracking."
"Azure has not yet advanced to the performance level of the other major competitors and is missing integration with important technologies."
More Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 29 reviews while Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 77 reviews. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 7.4, while Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "Makes it easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Robust functionality, good integration, continually enhanced, and easy to scale". Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with Jira, GitLab, TFS, ServiceNow IT Business Management and Rally Software. See our Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps report.
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.
