Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs SmartBear TestComplete vs Zephyr Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Mindshare comparison

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Test Automation Tools
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
PraveenKumar27 - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful for test case management, but we faced some errors while uploading the test cases
We have used the product well. We use it for test case uploading. We created an Excel file and aligned the columns of the Excel file with the columns on the solution. It was a minimum guidance process. We can meet our requirements using the solution. We are able to do tasks without many errors. Overall, I rate the product a six or seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."
"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"The product has many features."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"Selenium integration."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"The solution does its job well."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
 

Cons

"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 would like to have support for agile development."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"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."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"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."
"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)."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"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."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"Security needs improvement to protect customer information better."
"Zephyr Enterprise needs to redesign the reporting."
"The solution is not really stable. Sometimes in the past, some pages wouldn't load due to issues."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"It's difficult to export the test cases in Zephyr, especially with screenshots or attachments, making sharing test cases not very easy."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
"This is an expensive solution."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"It's a perpetual license."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"It comes with a high cost."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"DFS is more expensive than Zephyr. DFS is around $32 per person, whereas Zephyr is $10 per person. There is a major difference in the price, which is the main reason why we are trying to shift to Zephyr."
"It costs a couple of thousand dollars for a little more than 125 users, per month."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
850,043 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases in...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use ...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding t...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to imp...
What needs improvement with Zephyr Enterprise?
Some areas for improvement, include its export capabilities. Exporting test cases, especially those with screenshots ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
No data available
SmartBear Zephyr
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Hyundai, Fujitsu, Google, David Jones, Burger King, Ingenico, Websense, Dow Jones, Harris, Saab
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: April 2025.
850,043 professionals have used our research since 2012.