We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"The stability is very good."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"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."
"The QA needs improvement."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
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.
