We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Microsoft Azure Devops based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure DevOps is the winner in this comparison. According to reviews, Azure Devops is a powerful solution that is easier to set up, and less expensive than Quality Center.
"I like the entire tool because it is a one-stop-solution for DevOps."
"Technical support has been excellent. On that side, Microsoft is very good. The customer support of Microsoft has really improved this past year. On the cloud side also we are very satisfied because it offers very good support."
"Detailed logs allow us to pinpoint the exact cause of any issues, making troubleshooting efficient and accurate."
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"It's got something that you won't find in other products."
"Some of the most valuable features are the ease of use and the ability to monitor a lot of things. It has a lot of applications and facilities that meet all the developers' requirements. For example, we can use application insights to get an idea of our application's performance. Since it's cloud-based, it's really good for collaboration and working as a team."
"Microsoft has good integration with its other products, such as Office, Teams, et cetera."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"It has a good response time."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"We are facing some problems because the capacity can only be measured within a project. It cannot be measured across multiple projects. So, the reporting needs to be enhanced, and there should be more graphs to be able to easily give the upper management insights about all the employees from different departments. It will be helpful for employee management. Currently, the managers over here are using Power BI for insights because the functionality of Azure DevOps Boards is not enough. So, we have to export the data into another visualization tool and get the results."
"The solution could be made faster because it can be a little unnerving to browse through too many pages and press too many buttons."
"The functions have too much dependency right now, so it makes it really, really hard to upgrade and make a change in the code."
"Its interface could be more user-friendly. It could be simplified for users with no prior knowledge. There should also be better tutorials."
"Something that could be improved is the initial setup with the integration of ReadyAPI."
"Its price can also be reduced. It would be great if they are a little bit more competitive in terms of pricing because many open-source products are currently available in the market."
"The interface is very bad."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps should create some training materials."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"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."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"The QA needs improvement."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 127 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
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.
