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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Visual Studio Test Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.8
ROI experiences with OpenText vary, highlighting time savings, cost reductions, and efficiencies, largely influenced by project size and utilization.
Sentiment score
7.3
Visual Studio Test Professional boosts productivity and ROI, enhancing development speed and quality, while varying ROI across companies.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText receives mixed reviews with some finding support helpful, but others cite slow response times and inconsistent assistance.
Sentiment score
7.1
Visual Studio Test Professional's support is well-rated for responsiveness, knowledgeable staff, and helpful resources, despite navigation challenges.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
Sometimes, the documentation is not readable, being too long or too detailed and not connected to my problem.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText Application Quality Management is praised for scalability, handling extensive projects efficiently with manageable licensing challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly scalable, effectively supporting various team sizes and projects despite cost and infrastructure considerations.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Application Quality Management is stable and resilient, with minor issues during upgrades and complex interactions.
Sentiment score
7.9
Visual Studio Test Professional is generally stable, with updates enhancing reliability, though occasional performance issues are reported.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText requires better agile integration, automation, improved UI, reduced costs, and third-party tool support to address user concerns.
Visual Studio Test Professional needs improved performance, integration, usability, compatibility, and support for automation and web application testing.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
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.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
Sometimes, the library version is not compatible with other libraries, causing errors in my application.
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface.
The Git extensions are very basic and can be more extensive compared to other software focused on Git, like GitTower or SmartGit.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText's pricing is considered high, particularly for small enterprises, requiring negotiation for better rates and evaluating alternatives.
Visual Studio Test Professional is costly but offers competitive value, priced at $52 monthly per user, with multi-user discounts.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
The price is expensive.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Application Quality Management offers scalable, customizable test management with robust API integration, traceability, and comprehensive reporting for enterprises.
Visual Studio Test Professional excels in code testing, user interface, integration, debugging, and scalability for efficient software development.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
It supports cross-platform functionality.
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valuable because it provides extensive extensions and plugins that assist in measuring code quality.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd)
Visual Studio Test Professi...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.6%, up from 12.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Visual Studio Test Professional is 2.4%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Huong Vuong - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective testing and good data management with seamless Excel integration
There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements. For example, only the first user can click 'run' during testing, and subsequent users have to click 'continue manual run', which can create reporting errors. Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
CharlesChang - PeerSpot reviewer
Valuable performance and libraries but needs compatibility improvements
We use Visual Studio Test Professional to develop our internal applications for our company The performance of Visual Studio Test Professional is valuable. Additionally, there are many libraries that I can use, and it supports cross-platform functionality. Visual Studio Test Professional is…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
61%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Real Estate/Law Firm
8%
 

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 into Quality Center.
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 licensing model.
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 test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
What do you like most about Visual Studio Test Professional?
The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Visual Studio Test Professional?
The tool is free, resulting in no costs associated with its use. The absence of price makes it cost-effective.
What needs improvement with Visual Studio Test Professional?
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface. Currently, I need to search online to find out how to use certain functions. This feature would save time by providing direct assi...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Transport for Greater Manchester, Ordina, Bluegarden A/S, CLEAResult, Jet.com, OSIsoft, Australian Taxation Office, BookedOut, Tracasa
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Visual Studio Test Professional and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.