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 boosts testing efficiency, improving management visibility, cost savings, traceability, and mapping test cases to requirements.
Sentiment score
7.2
Tricentis Tosca enhances ROI with efficient automated testing, reducing costs and time, though costly for smaller firms.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
Tasks that typically take ten hours are reduced to two to three hours, representing a threefold productivity gain.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's customer service varies, with effective high-level support but delays and mixed expertise at lower levels.
Sentiment score
6.8
Tricentis Tosca customer service is praised for responsiveness and expertise, despite some delays and lack of online community.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
My experience has been positive; their response to emails or phone calls in tech support is fast, usually between eight to ten hours.
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Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.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 is praised for scalability, handling many users well, though licensing and resources can be restrictive.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis Tosca is scalable for large enterprises, supporting automation across technologies, despite potential customization and cost challenges.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
It covers a breadth of applications and products, demonstrating excellent scalability that I have seen in reality.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Users find OpenText ALM stable, with occasional lags under heavy load, but overall high reliability and uptime with proper setup.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis Tosca is stable, with minor license issues and occasional slowdowns, but vendor support effectively resolves challenges.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
The stability of Tricentis Tosca is rated ten out of ten. It is very stable.
I find stability issues when using the Vision AI feature; Tricentis Tosca is not very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM faces high costs, complex interface, limited browser compatibility, and lacks flexible integration with Agile processes and tools.
Tricentis Tosca needs better integration, object recognition, documentation, mobile testing, UI, cost-effective licensing, support, reporting, and AI features.
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.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
If a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly.
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's high pricing necessitates strategic financial planning, with costs varying by deployment, user volume, and licensing.
Tricentis Tosca's high costs suit large enterprises, while smaller companies may prefer open-source alternatives for automation.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
The pricing for Tricentis Tosca is extremely high, and I rate it as ten in terms of expense.
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, integration, and scalability for managing manual and automated testing efficiently.
Tricentis Tosca simplifies testing with scriptless automation, model-based testing, broad technology support, and seamless integration with other tools.
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 modular approach reduces scripting effort by at least fifty percent, which significantly cuts down on the script development time.
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 (4th), Test Management Tools (1st)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
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.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
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?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
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.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.