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
6.9
OpenText ALM / Quality Center optimizes testing, enhances collaboration, reduces costs, and improves project efficiency and application traceability.
Sentiment score
7.8
TFS enhances productivity, reduces costs, and integrates well with Microsoft tools, proving valuable for efficient software development.
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 customer service is inconsistent, with mixed reviews on response times, expertise, and overall service quality.
Sentiment score
7.1
Most users find TFS support efficient, despite some wanting faster responses, with scores generally between 8 and 10.
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 scales well, with stable performance for large user bases, but licensing may affect scalability costs.
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 stable and reliable, with minor issues often linked to network or hardware constraints.
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OpenText ALM faces challenges with expensive licenses, outdated UI, limited integration, and performance issues, hindering usability and efficiency.
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.
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 is costly, requiring careful evaluation and negotiation, but global license sharing and SaaS could reduce expenses.
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 provides comprehensive traceability, integration, scalability, and secure management for lifecycle, test cases, and defects.
TFS offers versatile version control, seamless Visual Studio integration, robust lifecycle management, and efficient project and code management.
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
205
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 December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.2%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TFS is 8.4%, down from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management 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.
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.
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%
Educational Organization
63%
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?
There are many version control options available in the market. From a costing and licensing perspective, I would rate it around six out of ten. It is not the cheapest product, but it offers good v...
 

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