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
6.9
OpenText ALM / Quality Center optimizes testing, enhances collaboration, reduces costs, and improves project efficiency and application traceability.
Sentiment score
7.5
Organizations using OpenText UFT One experience up to 300% ROI through enhanced efficiency and 60% test automation.
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 customer service is inconsistent, with mixed reviews on response times, expertise, and overall service quality.
Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText UFT One's customer service is praised for expertise but faces challenges with response speed and technician knowledge variability.
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 scales well, with stable performance for large user bases, but licensing may affect scalability costs.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One is highly scalable, adaptable for varying team sizes, with some execution speed challenges in large test suites.
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 stable and reliable, with minor issues often linked to network or hardware constraints.
Sentiment score
6.6
Opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability vary, with some users experiencing stability issues influenced by system specifications and configurations.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM faces challenges with expensive licenses, outdated UI, limited integration, and performance issues, hindering usability and efficiency.
OpenText UFT One needs improvements in compatibility, performance, technology support, integration, cost, and usability for enhanced user experience.
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.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM is costly, requiring careful evaluation and negotiation, but global license sharing and SaaS could reduce expenses.
OpenText UFT One is costly but valued for reducing manual testing and enhancing automation efficiency, sometimes offering discounts.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides comprehensive traceability, integration, scalability, and secure management for lifecycle, test cases, and defects.
OpenText UFT One is versatile, supporting multiple platforms with AI capabilities and robust integration for comprehensive test automation.
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.
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
205
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
94
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 5.7%, up 5.7% compared to last year.
OpenText UFT One, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 9.6% mindshare, up 9.6% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Functional 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.
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.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
63%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing 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.
 

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: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.