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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise comparison

The compared OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked #5 in ALM , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 5.7% mindshare in the category. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked #5 in PTT , with an average rating of 8.6, and holds a 6.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText ALM / Quality Center users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise users who would recommend it.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Read 204 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews
  • 7,554 Views
  • 3,152 Comparison Views
89% willing to recommend
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Read 83 OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise reviews
  • 3,378 Views
  • 1,837 Comparison Views
90% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive Summary
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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Report (Updated: October 2024).
Buyer's Guide
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
October 2024
Download the complete report
Helped 816,406 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.8
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's support is inconsistent, with varied user experiences, prompting reliance on internal, third-party, or premier support.
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.8
OpenText ALM faces high costs, outdated UI, limited compatibility, cumbersome reporting, and integration issues, needing broader platform flexibility.
No sentiment score available
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText ALM / Quality Center report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
OpenText ALM/Quality Center supports large user bases and diverse projects efficiently, despite occasional license and performance issues.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high costs make it challenging for smaller companies, promoting a shift to cheaper or open-source options.
No sentiment score available
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.9
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is stable with occasional issues; patching and updates enhance performance and minimize downtime.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.0
OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for efficient project oversight, test management, and defect tracking.
No sentiment score available
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText ALM / Quality Center report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
204
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th), Test Management Tools (1st)
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th), Load Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 5.7%, up 5.7% compared to last year.
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, on the other hand, focuses on Performance Testing Tools, holds 6.1% mindshare, down 8.6% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Has an initial setup phase that is easy to manage
The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard. The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network. There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.
Read full review
VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
Read full review
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
62%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and ...
See all answers
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center Logo
Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Compared 24% of the time
OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center Logo
OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Compared 22% of the time
Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center Logo
Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Compared 15% of the time
Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center Logo
Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Compared 9% of the time
IBM Engineering Test Management vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center Logo
IBM Engineering Test Management vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Compared 1% of the time
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Logo
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Compared 38% of the time
OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Logo
OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Compared 24% of the time
Tricentis NeoLoad vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Logo
Tricentis NeoLoad vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Compared 9% of the time
OpenText Silk Performer vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Logo
OpenText Silk Performer vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Compared 6% of the time
Akamai CloudTest vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Logo
Akamai CloudTest vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
Compared 4% of the time
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
November 2024
OpenText ALM / Quality Center reportDownload OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise
November 2024
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise reportDownload OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise product report
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, Micro Focus Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
 

Learn More

OpenText
OpenText
 

Overview

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

Your globally distributed performance testing teams have the responsibility of driving quality acrossyour enterprise while testing a broad range of application types, managing costs and deploying applications that meet the performance requirements of your business. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise delivers a collaborative testing platform that reduces complexity, centralizes resources and leverages shared assets and licenses to increase consistency across your enterprise.

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Buyer's Guide
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
October 2024
Download Free Report
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: October 2024.
DOWNLOAD NOW
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.