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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs TFS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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
7.8
TFS enhances productivity, reduces costs, and integrates well with Microsoft tools, proving valuable for efficient software development.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
Integrating TFS with Visual Studio and Azure Cloud has improved our development processes by providing better integration and reducing errors.
 

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
7.1
Most users find TFS support efficient, despite some wanting faster responses, with scores generally between 8 and 10.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
as a Microsoft product, it might have limited global documentation or support options compared to GitLab.
 

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
7.5
TFS is scalable and integrates well with Microsoft apps, but faces challenges in large deployments with high user loads.
 

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OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable but faces performance issues with increased users, poor networks, or outdated setups.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
7.8
TFS is stable and dependable, with minor concerns addressed through updates, but lacks agility compared to Jira.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
Its stability is lacking as we have encountered security leaks and glitches.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM users face high costs, outdated UI, limited integration, and automation, impacting performance and scalability.
TFS needs stability, interface, merging improvements, better integration, lower costs, simplified features, and enhanced agile and cloud support.
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.
TFS is not as fast, easy to use, or configurable as GitLab, despite moving into the cloud.
I am content with how TFS is structured now, particularly the Azure version.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is costly, with complex licensing impacting ROI, prompting negotiation due to cheaper alternatives.
TFS pricing is competitive yet complex, favoring Microsoft's subscription for cost efficiency, especially beneficial for existing Microsoft users.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers traceability, integrated management, scalability, and powerful API, supporting extensive testing and defect tracking.
TFS offers versatile version control, seamless Visual Studio integration, robust lifecycle management, and efficient project and code management.
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.
The integration with Azure DevOps also offers seamless functionality for CI/CD processes.
Makes it easier for me to create builds and release pipelines without needing to program YAML files.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
206
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
TFS
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.5%, up from 12.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TFS is 8.6%, down from 11.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management 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.
Pmurki@Micron.Com Praveen - PeerSpot reviewer
Version control is excellent and good for code review, branching, merging strategies and more
I've worked with TFS for source control and Agile project management. We also used TFS for seamless team collaboration and tracking.  I used TFS for a couple of years. Now, we use Azure DevOps. It's a wonderful tool for source control and CI/CD pipelines It's a really valuable tool for…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools 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%
Educational Organization
64%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
4%
Financial Services Firm
4%
 

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...
Which is better - TFS or Azure DevOps?
TFS and Azure DevOps are different in many ways. TFS was designed for admins, and only offers incremental improvements. In addition, TFS seems complicated to use and I don’t think it has a very fri...
What do you like most about TFS?
Microsoft's technical team is supportive.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TFS?
While I do not know the exact pricing, TFS is likely more expensive than GitLab.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Team Foundation Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Vendex KBB IT Services, Info Support, Fujitsu Consulting, TCSC, Airways New Zealand, HP
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TFS and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.