OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Microsoft Azure DevOps compete in the realm of application lifecycle management and DevOps integration. Microsoft Azure DevOps appears to hold an edge due to its integration of CI/CD pipelines and user-friendly interface, making it more appealing to development teams seeking streamlined DevOps processes.
Features: OpenText ALM / Quality Center is highly customizable with robust traceability and integration capabilities, making it suitable for large organizations needing end-to-end lifecycle management. It offers enriched reporting and traceability, integrating well with various management tools. Conversely, Microsoft Azure DevOps provides a flexible environment with integrated CI/CD pipelines, version control, and collaborative workspaces, making it a preferred choice for teams aiming for efficiency and continuous integration.
Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM / Quality Center is impacted by high licensing costs and compatibility issues with non-IE browsers, affecting flexibility and user experience. Maintenance complexity is another concern. For Azure DevOps, areas that could see enhancement include its third-party integration capabilities, reporting features, and security testing functionalities.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers both on-premises and private cloud deployment, though users face challenges with upgrades and reliance on technical support, which is not always consistent. Microsoft Azure DevOps, mainly deployed on the public cloud, provides straightforward setup and scalability, with customer service noted for being responsive and effective, leveraging the advantages of cloud-based service reliability.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM / Quality Center is perceived as costly for smaller organizations due to licensing and maintenance expenses, though it offers substantial ROI in larger enterprises through enhanced project management. Microsoft Azure DevOps' competitive pricing, with a free tier supporting up to five users, offers a cost-effective subscription plan that favors small to medium-sized teams, facilitating wider adoption for effective DevOps execution.
On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best, I would say ROI is an eight.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
Resolving issues took time since understanding our unique problems was not always straightforward for support teams.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
The scalability has left me pleased, not just for our teams in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, but as we expanded into North America, Africa, and even Australia.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
Everything works ninety-nine percent well.
The solution is stable, and we did not encounter any stability issues.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
Enhanced system guidance highlighting best practices would be beneficial, especially if experienced personnel are not available for support.
Those processes are a bit difficult for some customers who may not have technical knowledge and don't go through the entire documentation.
Instead of customers having to try many options themselves, they benefit from practitioner recommendations.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
They don't even provide a POC where you can have a sandbox or stuff that you can go through and see how exactly it's costing.
I find it to be expensive.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
No organization would use just one vendor, and the goal is about what works well, is scalable, performs well, and offers a reasonable total cost of ownership.
Our company organized a training session with a certified Azure expert, which was extremely beneficial for adopting best practices during the initial three months.
I can't approve my own request and move the code around without a review.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
Microsoft Azure DevOps is a cloud service that enables developers to collaborate on code development projects and create and deploy applications quicker than ever before. The service helps unite developers, project managers, and software development experts through a collaborative experience while using the application. For the users' convenience, Azure DevOps offers the user cloud services through Azure DevOps Services or an on-premises service using Azure DevOps Server. In addition, it supports integration with additional services and adding extensions, including the ability for the user to create their own custom extensions.
Azure DevOps provides a variety of unified features that can be accessed through their web browser or IDE client, such as:
Benefits of Microsoft Azure DevOps
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers many benefits, including:
Reviews from Real Users
Microsoft Azure DevOps stands out among its competitors for a variety of reasons. Two major ones are its ability to forecast how long each task will take and the ability for users to follow the entire development process.
PeerSpot viewers note the effectiveness of this solution. An executive chief operating officer for a cloud provider notes, “We can forecast tasks and the number of hours a task will take and can compare it with how long a task actually takes.”
Carlos H., a product and system director at SPCM, writes, “I think the most usable thing is that you can follow the whole progress of the development process. This makes it very useful for us.”
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.