We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."It has a good response time."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs."
"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."
"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."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"The Worksoft Capture feature is most valuable. For example, if you are creating a sales order in SAP, you do not need to go to each field and do everything. You do not need to write code for each and every line. You can just turn on the Worksoft Capture feature and manually perform your actions. It will capture all manual actions, and it will give you the steps. It will write the steps for you."
"Our business users are doing regression testing as their day job. This is an add-on to their daily work. With everything so pressured in the industry, automation takes the pressure of these users."
"The scripting methodology is easy to learn. It is easy to maintain because it is presented in a simple, narrative way. You don't need to know programming." "It has reduced our test maintenance time by more than 50 percent because we don't have to do manual test processes. We have saved over 150 man-hours monthly. It has increased our delivery times. We went from 200 man-hours down (three weeks work time frame) to approximately 40 man-hours (three days work time frame)."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is good. Our clients like using it. It does not take long to create documentation."
"It's pretty seamless with SAP and Salesforce because they've built in the field definitions and all the things that you need. You literally turn it on and execute your script and it records it. It's very simple. Then you can go back and put in some of the other functions. For example, instead of hard-coding field selections, you put in a data table so you can run it multiple times or with multiple data. It was actually written to work very well with SAP."
"People focus on what they actually want to test and define it in a more detailed way. It shines a light on what they are testing, along with the speed and adaptability."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"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."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"Performance on the web UI part, especially with some of the more comprehensive Fiori features, like the complex tables that are being used, could be improved. In those cases we have noticed a lot of execution-time increase with regards to the Certify solution."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"I would like Worksoft Certify to do automation at any layer (the UI layer, API layer, or database layer) and challenge competitors in the RPA industry, like UiPath and Automation Anywhere."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"I would like BPP to have more filtering options during the report creation. This would make our customers happy."
"For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. 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 Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite.
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.
