Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache JMeter vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Apache JMeter is cost-effective, offering significant savings and effectiveness for high-demand performance testing, surpassing HP Performance Center.
Sentiment score
6.9
OpenText ALM / Quality Center optimizes testing, enhances collaboration, reduces costs, and improves project efficiency and application traceability.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Apache JMeter support is community-driven and free, with varying response times; commercial options like BlazeMeter offer dedicated assistance.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM customer service is inconsistent, with mixed reviews on response times, expertise, and overall service quality.
The support for Apache JMeter is excellent.
Apache JMeter relies more on community support.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Apache JMeter scales well with distributed testing, enhanced by cloud tools, but faces challenges at high loads and configurations.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center scales well, with stable performance for large user bases, but licensing may affect scalability costs.
JMeter is highly scalable, easily handling increased loads through the use of multiple servers.
This restricts the number of users and necessitates increasing load agents or distributing the script across multiple machines.
Without location dependency, it's rated ten out of ten, but with dependency, it can be six out of ten.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Apache JMeter is stable but may require specific configurations for high loads; community support exists for optimal performance.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is stable and reliable, with minor issues often linked to network or hardware constraints.
JMeter performs exceptionally well, especially in non-GUI mode, which supports high loads efficiently.
Several necessary features still need improvements, specifically in terms of reports and additional functionalities compared to other commercial tools.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache JMeter faces criticism for its complex GUI, performance issues, limited automation, documentation, and integration challenges.
OpenText ALM faces challenges with expensive licenses, outdated UI, limited integration, and performance issues, hindering usability and efficiency.
The tool needs improvements related to client-side metrics, integrating with tools like YSlow or HTTP Watch, and enhancing mobile testing capabilities.
Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal.
With BlazeMeter, you can view the results in real-time.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
 

Setup Cost

Apache JMeter is cost-effective and scalable, appealing to enterprises for its flexibility and extensive community support.
OpenText ALM is costly, requiring careful evaluation and negotiation, but global license sharing and SaaS could reduce expenses.
Using JMeter helps us avoid additional costs for high-load testing since it is open-source and allows for unlimited virtual users at no extra cost.
It's a cost-effective solution.
Apache JMeter is completely free as it is open-source.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

Apache JMeter provides an open-source, scalable solution with extensive plugins, effective reporting, and strong community support for performance testing.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides comprehensive traceability, integration, scalability, and secure management for lifecycle, test cases, and defects.
Monetary benefits with Apache JMeter are notable since it doesn’t require a licensed version.
Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools.
JMeter facilitates scripting capabilities, which include options for Groovy scripts.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache JMeter
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (1st), Load Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Apache JMeter is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 24.4%, up 22.6% compared to last year.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center, on the other hand, focuses on Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites, holds 5.9% mindshare, up 5.6% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Swetha Mahasivbhattu - PeerSpot reviewer
Cost-effective performance and useful insights with an easy setup
It is very user-friendly. We just upload the script, and the dashboards are very informative. It's useful for both the person conducting the test and the higher management, like project managers or senior executives, who may not know about the test. They can easily view the results and gain valuable insights. Additionally, monetary benefits with Apache JMeter are notable since it doesn’t require a licensed version.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
We can have multiple users execute tests independently on their own computers because the UFT scripts are stored online.
When a particular version of Quality Center has reached end of life, the customer is forced to upgrade to the newer version to be eligible to get technical support. The upgrade process can be time intensive and requires a lot of planning. Quality Center seems to originally designed for a Waterfall process. However, the newer versions of ALM are more adaptable to Agile testing methodology. The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT. ALM/QC supports IE but does not support Chrome which a lot of users like/want to use. History of Quality Center including other names and versions: On September 1, 2017 the HPE testing tools officially became Micro Focus. It is too early to see how the transition to Micro Focus will change things. I am keeping an optimistic view that Micro Focus will continue to invest in R&D and place a priority on customer support. I believe a lot of long-time customers would like to see things run like they were back in the Mercury Interactive days, which was one of the most innovative software companies of its time. If Micro Focus develops the right strategy, they could become a dominant player in the software testing market. It is beneficial for the reader to understand the history of Quality Center since it has gone through several name changes and versions, so I have listed the chronological events below: * Mercury Interactive originally came out with TestDirector that included versions 1.52 to 8.0. * Mercury renamed the product TestDirector to Quality Center in version 8.0. * HP acquired Mercury and rebranded all Mercury products to HP. Therefore, Mercury Quality Center became HP Quality Center. * HP released version 11.00 and renamed it to HP ALM (Application Lifecycle Management). * In June 2016, HP released ALM Octane. So essentially, the tool at one time or another has had the names TestDirector, Quality Center, ALM, and ALM Octane. Essentially, with each version and name change there has been added functionality.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
830,726 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Educational Organization
64%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes processes very efficient. We can also export the test cases we create and share t...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: January 2025.
830,726 professionals have used our research since 2012.