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."The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"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."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"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."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"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."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The product has many features."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"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."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application.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."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"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."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"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."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
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 22 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 12 reviews. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 6.6, 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, Ranorex Studio, Micro Focus UFT One 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.
