We performed a comparison between Micro Focus 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."What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"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."
"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."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"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."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"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 pricing is the constraint."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
More Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 21 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 10 reviews. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 6.8, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Speed, configuration consistency, and accuracy of tests with fantastic results". Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Micro Focus UFT One and Tricentis qTest, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Micro Focus UFT One, Ranorex Studio and Appium. See our Micro Focus 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.
