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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText UFT One 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
6.8
Organizations experience cost savings, efficiency gains, and collaboration benefits with OpenText ALM despite complexity challenges and uncertain financial metrics.
Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText UFT One enhances efficiency and productivity with automation, AI capabilities, and supports achieving up to 300% ROI.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center support is mixed, with timeliness issues and varying effectiveness depending on support representatives.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText UFT One's customer service is generally efficient but inconsistent, with varied experiences in support quality and response time.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is scalable, supports large user bases, but may face performance issues and licensing challenges.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One is scalable, integrating with Jenkins, but success depends on licensing, automation quality, and deployment strategy.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable but faces performance issues with increased users, poor networks, or outdated setups.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText UFT One generally exhibits stability, though some users report performance issues, often resolved through updates. Satisfaction remains high.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM users face high costs, outdated UI, limited integration, and automation, impacting performance and scalability.
OpenText UFT One requires improvements in stability, compatibility, speed, memory use, object recognition, and integration with open-source tools.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is costly, with complex licensing impacting ROI, prompting negotiation due to cheaper alternatives.
OpenText UFT One licensing is costly, leading organizations to mix different license types and evaluate ROI against open-source alternatives.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers traceability, integrated management, scalability, and powerful API, supporting extensive testing and defect tracking.
OpenText UFT One provides versatile automation with cross-platform compatibility, easy use, robust testing, and integration with key technologies.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
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.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
206
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th), Test Management Tools (1st)
OpenText UFT One
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 5.9%, up 5.6% compared to last year.
OpenText UFT One, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 9.9% mindshare, up 9.5% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
64%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

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.
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...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: December 2024.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.