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."Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"It has a good response time."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"The most valuable feature from my point of view is project management, which includes user stories as well as task management."
"TFS is very user-friendly."
"TFS' most valuable feature is the triage process. It is a robust solution that is easy to use."
"The work item feature is most valuable. It allows us to store all product requirements. We can also link the test cases to those requirements so that we know which feature has already been tested, and which one is waiting for testing. We can also couple the code reviews, unit tests, and automated tests into these requirements. It is reliable. It has all the features and good performance. It also has reporting tools or analysis tools."
"The tool's installation is straightforward."
"Some of the valuable features are version control and the ability to create different collections in terms of segregating the authorization for teams who connect to small projects."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"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."
"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
"I'm looking for specific options that aren't currently available, such as active status, new status, or what's currently in progress."
"It has been really dated. When you start to work more in an agile environment, it is not really that flexible. They tried to replicate the look and feel of Jira, but it is not quite there. It was nice to use in the past, but it is not as flexible now with the changing development environments and methodologies."
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.