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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs UiPath Test Cloud 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
8.1
UiPath Test Cloud delivers rapid ROI by reducing development time, execution costs, and optimizing resource usage despite high initial setup costs.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

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
7.9
UiPath Test Cloud is praised for its responsive, knowledgeable support team, despite some concerns about extended support costs.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
Support should be free, especially for product-related issues.
 

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
7.2
UiPath Test Cloud offers scalable, efficient automation management, excelling in regression testing with adaptable deployment, despite integration and cost challenges.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
Proper knowledge of Orchestrator and CI/CD processes makes the product truly scalable.
 

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
7.8
UiPath Test Cloud offers reliable testing with occasional connectivity issues, rated mostly between seven to nine for stability.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
UiPath Test Suite has matured over the years and is now quite stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM faces high costs, complex interface, limited browser compatibility, and lacks flexible integration with Agile processes and tools.
UiPath Test Cloud requires improved mobile automation, integration, usability, management features, logging, pricing, and enhanced testing capabilities.
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.
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.
UiPath should introduce compatibility so existing processes in Selenium or other tools can work seamlessly with UiPath Test automation.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high pricing necessitates strategic financial planning, with costs varying by deployment, user volume, and licensing.
Enterprise buyers find UiPath Test Cloud costly but justified by comprehensive features, suggesting a unified license for efficiency.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
The pricing of UiPath tends to be on the higher side, which can restrict smaller companies from adopting it.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for managing manual and automated testing efficiently.
UiPath Test Cloud streamlines automation with test tools, low-code integration, fast execution, and AI features, reducing costs and effort.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
What I really like about UiPath Test Suite is its ability to ensure that any changes made do not affect other functionalities.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)
UiPath Test Cloud
Ranking in Test Management Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 12.3%, down from 12.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of UiPath Test Cloud is 3.3%, up from 0.3% 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.
Deborah Yarosh - PeerSpot reviewer
Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement
UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment. The QA Manager needs to track which tests have been completed, the success rate, and other relevant information. The ability to have manual tests show up in multiple projects is a requirement that is not easily done in Test Suite. We have submitted the following enhancements request to UiPath and are waiting for them to address these issues before migrating our manual testing to the UiPath Test Suite platform. * Ability to import manual test cases from an Excel Spreadsheet. * Ability to create release folders and have manual tests under the folders (sub-folders are also needed). * Ability to copy tests between projects (manual and automated). * Ability to execute manual test cases in any order and skip tests if needed. * Ability to assign and see who has been assigned to test cases – need to know who created the test case and who executed the test case as they could be different people. * Ability for the QA manager to see which test cases have been run and which haven’t as well as which ones were successful, and which weren’t. * Ability for the QA manager to track defect cycles for a particular release. * Improving Search functionality – must enter the exact test case name in current search functionality. * Ability to extract key data for artifacts for Release Management or Audit* Test Set or Individual Cases, * Include Test Results (passed / failed), * Include how many iterations a test case went through until it passed.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 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
18%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare 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?
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...
What do you like most about UiPath Test Suite?
Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for UiPath Test Suite?
The pricing of UiPath tends to be on the higher side, which can restrict smaller companies from adopting it. Although justified by the solution's capability, excessive costs should not be necessary...
What needs improvement with UiPath Test Suite?
There is room for improvement in terms of introducing framework compatibility. Many companies use test automation as an alternative to Selenium but need to develop a fully functional bot in UiPath ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Test Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.