We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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."Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"The stability is very good."
"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."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"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."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."
"The most valuable aspect of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the overall support it has for a lot of different applications and defined domains."
"You can test a huge variety of applications, not just web-based systems, but SAP, Oracle, web services, pretty much anything out in the market place, but it's mobile-based testing."
"It offers easy integration with third-party tools like Dynatrace, Splunk, etc."
"The most valuable part of the product is the way you can scale the basic testing easily."
"For me, the test coverage and the performance and load testing aspects are valuable."
"The solution does support a wide range of technologies and protocols. Plus, two features, network virtualization, and service virtualization, are really helpful. Apart from that, the way they have their billing scenarios, like the execution, is very good."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"The performance could be faster."
"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."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."
"It is tough to maintain from the infrastructure side."
"Currently, when we try open LRE we encounter cookie banner issues. However, I'm not sure if it is within the enterprise solution or with the vendors."
"Micro Focus's technical support could be more responsive."
"Canned reports are always a challenge and a question with customers because customers want to see sexy reports."
"When we have a new application, recording the application is a pretty tough task. We have tried multiple things. We do scripting or try to record with different settings and on different machines. We try to record multiple times, but we do not know why it is recording and why it is not recording. We do the same thing on different machines. It sometimes records, and at other times, it does not. That is one of the major concerns."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise 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 OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Jama Connect, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Akamai CloudTest.
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.
