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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Tricentis Tosca 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
OpenText ALM enhances oversight, testing efficiency, and collaboration, offering cost savings and reduced defects, despite standardization challenges.
Sentiment score
7.1
Tricentis Tosca significantly reduced tests, boosted ROI, enhanced efficiency, yet smaller companies found it costly compared to local options.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM customer service varies from fair to excellent, but response times and expertise often need improvement.
Sentiment score
6.8
Tricentis Tosca support is generally responsive and helpful, but some users experience delays and desire improved efficiency.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
There is no way to mark the importance or criticality of incidents when creating them.
Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center excels in scalability and flexibility, despite some licensing and performance challenges, meeting diverse organizational needs.
Sentiment score
7.3
Tricentis Tosca is highly scalable, adaptable for extensive testing, praised for end-to-end automation and suitable for large enterprises.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable and dependable, though it faces occasional performance and crash issues under heavy use.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis Tosca is reliable but can face performance issues with large projects, network instability, and licensing challenges.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
I find stability issues when using the Vision AI feature; Tricentis Tosca is not very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM/Quality Center struggles with high costs, outdated features, poor integration, inadequate reporting, and limited modern methodology support.
Tricentis Tosca needs improvements in usability, cost, test features, integration, and ease of learning for new users.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
Moving to a cloud-based application rather than a desktop one could improve Tosca.
The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center pricing is high, justified for large enterprises, but users seek more competitive pricing versus open-source rivals.
Tricentis Tosca is costly for SMEs, with annual licenses up to Є20,000, but deals are possible for large enterprises.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros.
For enterprise customers, the cost is manageable because it provides solutions for multiple applications they want to automate.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust traceability, customization, tool integration, test management, automation support, and comprehensive reporting for effective project tracking.
Tricentis Tosca provides user-friendly, scriptless test automation with model-based testing, handling complex scenarios for efficient, flexible testing.
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.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
It allows for drag-and-drop functionality and demo automation in SAP-based applications, which can be challenging with other automation tools.
The most useful features of Tricentis Tosca include API scanning, basic web application automation, and data validation capabilities.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th), Test Management Tools (1st)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

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.
Antonio Oteri - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to automate tests across various platforms and simplifies test creation
From what I've seen with my colleagues who make the software selection, the prices for this software in Brazil are too expensive to be applied to anything but huge customers. I'm surprised because I was in charge of planning and control at the company before, when there was a manager there. Normally, the company has structural licenses that are based on the company they are selling to. I see that these companies cannot spend this money on Tricentis. I think Tosca is losing this type of market. They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies. The same happened in the past with SAP, which changed its policy and also made licenses for low.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,615 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
65%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance 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...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: March 2023.
831,615 professionals have used our research since 2012.