We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zephyr Enterprise 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."Defect management is very good."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"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."
"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."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"The solution does its job well."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"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."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"We faced some errors while uploading the test cases."
"Security needs improvement to protect customer information better."
"Zephyr Enterprise needs to redesign the reporting."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"We have a lot of automation for our products, and we require a utility for its integration with automation. Currently, we have to write this utility ourselves. It would be great if they can provide such a utility."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Zephyr Enterprise is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Zephyr Enterprise is rated 7.8. 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 Zephyr Enterprise writes "Highly stable solution and meets users' needs". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText UFT One, whereas Zephyr Enterprise is most compared with TestRail, Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira and TFS. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Zephyr Enterprise report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools 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.