We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TFS 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."The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"The stability is very good."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"Since it is a robust solution, I face no performance issues. Also, considering how well the implementation process of the solution was carried out, we never faced any issues while using the solution."
"I have found almost all of the features valuable because it integrates well with your Microsoft products. If a client is using the entire Microsoft platform, then TFS would be definitely preferable. It integrates with the digital studio development environment as well."
"It's is a very stable solution."
"The initial setup is fairly easy."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"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."
"It is pricey."
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"There are many things that I cannot do, and I have a lot of bugs."
"The user interface could be improved to make it simpler and increase usability."
"The dashboard and the customization of dashboards is an area they have to work on."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"TFS and MTM have their own style of working and they are different from other tools like Jira or TestRail, which are simpler and easy to use."
"Merging branches is definitely one of the more challenging aspects for people new to TFS."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 93 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while TFS is rated 8.0. 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 TFS writes "It is helpful for scheduled releases and enforcing rules, but it should be better at merging changes for multiple developers and retaining the historical information". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Rally Software, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and Visual Studio Test Professional. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TFS report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors and best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.