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.
"The installation is very straightforward."
"Provides us with user histories."
"Everything that's related to the pipeline has been very good."
"Typically the sprints themselves and managing the tasks have essentially eliminated our need for reporting."
"The solution is good for everything, including end-to-end planning and its deployment and testing."
"Azure DevOps' collaborative features are good, and it integrates well with other tools in the software development process, like quality testing, documentation, and agile development."
"It is a well-integrated product in terms of the development lifecycle."
"It has a good GUI, and it's very user-friendly."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"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 setup is pretty straightforward."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"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's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"It has a good response time."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"They have brought a lot of new collaboration features in the latest version. We haven't used those features, but they should continue to expand it more on the collaboration front so that two developers can look at the code and work at the same time. It will be helpful for working from home."
"Azure DevOps is set up more for development and less for testing. If it is set up correctly, everyone can use it better, but it was set up from a development point of view, which means it is lacking in what I need from a testing perspective. Just like any other tool, it depends on how it is configured. I am not happy with the way it is set up. It is configured more from a development side, and it doesn't necessarily cater to all the other areas that probably need to use it, such as testing data, etc."
"When we don't have some permissions, we have to research how to get them."
"We are facing a lot of issues in the development of containerized solutions. We are facing a lot of challenges in this area. They could make the process simpler."
"As for improvement, the first one is pricing. For us, luckily because we are partners, it's free. Microsoft gold partners do not have to pay, but if you're not a partner, the product is very expensive."
"I want DevOps to have more automated reminders about tasks that don't need management. We don't have reminders, so a project manager must track the tasks. It's not automatic."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps should create some training materials."
"I would like to see DevOps have the ability to give us something with a compatibility or traceability matrix."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
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.
