We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"The stability is very good."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"The product is good to create big or small projects fastly. It is one of the leaders in the area."
"The solution is very stable."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"The most valuable feature has been to store all our packages in one place including SSIS packages, SQL tables, TFS and SSR."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"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."
"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."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"The documentation is limited."
"Its UI could be better."
"The price could be improved."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"I would like to see more integration in the solution."
"It could be available for multiple platforms and other operating systems like Mac with a native port."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 5th in Test Management Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.
