OpenText ALM/Quality Center vs. Tuskr

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
OpenText™ ALM/Quality Center, formerly from Micro Focus, serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps users to govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.N/A
Tuskr
Score 9.7 out of 10
N/A
Tuskr is a cloud-based test management software. Users can manage test cases, conduct test runs and integrate with bug and time tracking tools. Tuskr is available via a free plan, and with a 30-day free trial of paid tier features.
$45
per month 5 users (minimum)
Pricing
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Team
$9
per month per user
Business
$15
per month per user
Enterprise
$29
per month per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details16% discount for annual pricing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Test Management
Comparison of Test Management features of Product A and Product B
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
-
Ratings
Tuskr
9.7
20 Ratings
19% above category average
Centralized test management00 Ratings9.819 Ratings
Test execution reporting00 Ratings9.720 Ratings
Best Alternatives
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Small Businesses
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Likelihood to Recommend
7.2
(31 ratings)
9.9
(21 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(2 ratings)
8.2
(1 ratings)
Usability
3.0
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.4
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
1.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
OpenText ALM/Quality CenterTuskr
Likelihood to Recommend
OpenText
For an organisation that has completely adopted SAFe structure including naming terminology, it is less appropriate and apart from that. It can suit any organisation out there, and it can solve all your problems one way or another by customising it. It is a robust and highly scalable solution to support all the business needs. It improves a lot of productivity and visibility.
Read full review
Celoxis
Customizing fields and sorting make test case management easy to handle. The TCM's swift menu adjustments and dynamic graphs enhance the user experience, making it a delight to use.Few points which I do not dislike as such but can be improved. One is the ability to write longer tests. Another thing is that the UI when it comes to modifications like adding a new field, editing a field, etc requires few clicks and the path is slightly ambiguous.
Read full review
Pros
OpenText
  • If you have a mix of automation & manual test suites, HPALM is the best tool to manage that. It definitely integrates very well with HP automation tools like HP Unified Functional Testing and HP LoadRunner. Automated Suites can be executed, reports can be maintained automatically. It also classifies which test suites are manual & which are automated & managers can see the progress happening in moving from manual to automated suites. In HPA ALM all the functional test suites, performance test suites, security suites can be defined, managed & tracked in one place.
  • It is a wonderful tool for test management. Whether you want to create test cases, or import it, from execution to snapshot capturing, it supports all activities very well. The linking of defects to test runs is excellent. Any changes in mandatory fields or status of the defect triggers an e-mail and sent automatically to the user that the defect is assigned to.
  • It also supports devops implementation by interacting with development tool sets such as Jenkins & GIT. It also bring in team collaboration by supporting collaboration tools like Slack and Hubot.
  • This tool can integrate to any environment, any source control management tool bringing in changes and creates that trace-ability and links between source control changes to requirements to tests across the sdlc life-cycle.
Read full review
Celoxis
  • Its easy to import test cases in Tuskr by using the csv import feature
  • Test runs are easy to create and can include test cases from multiple suits.
  • Reports of test runs make it easier to track all the cases that were covered at a particular instance before giving a release signoff.
Read full review
Cons
OpenText
  • The requirements module is not as user friendly as other applications, such as Blue Bird. Managing requirements is usually done in another tool. However, having the requirements in ALM is important to ensure traceability to tests and defects.
  • Reporting across multiple ALM repositories is not supported within the tool. Only graphs are included within ALM functionality. Due to size considerations, one or two projects is not a good solution. Alternatively, we have started leveraging the template functionality within ALM and are integrating with a third party reporting tool to work around this issue.
  • NET (not Octane) requires a package for deployment to machines without administrative rights. Every time there is a change, a new package must be created, which increases the time to deploy. It also forces us to wait until multiple patches have been provided before updating production.
Read full review
Celoxis
  • When you click into a specific test, the status automatically clears. it would be nice for this to be preserved when clicking in instead of clearing
  • It would be nice to be able to add comments specific to certain steps in each test, instead of just one big comment box
  • Since we use Tuskr for QA, we structure it as a table with instructions and expected results. because these are side by side, sometimes it is hard to go in a step-by-step order when there are multiple QA steps to take to complete the test.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
OpenText
I like the ease to use and its reliable.
Read full review
Celoxis
Tuskr suits our organization needs
Read full review
Usability
OpenText
Because it lets me track the test cases with detailed scenarios and is clearly separated in folders. Also the defect filter helps me filter only the ones that have been assigned to a particular area of interest. The availability of reports lets me see the essentials fields which I might be missing the data on and helps me to work on these instead of having to go through everything.
Read full review
Celoxis
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
OpenText
It is a great tool, however, it got this rating because there is a lot of learning that takes a lot longer than other tools. There are no mobile versions of ALM even with just a project summary view. I believe ALM is well capable of integration with other analytics tools that can help business solutions prediction based on current and past project data. This is Data held in ALM but with no other use apart from human reading and project progress. ALM looks like a steady platform that I believe can handle more dynamic functionality. You could add an internal communication platform that is not a third party. Limit that communication tool to specific project members.
Read full review
Celoxis
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
OpenText
We have other tools in our organization like Atlassian JIRA and Microsoft Team Foundation Server, which are very capable tools but very narrow in their approach and feature set and does not come even close to the some of the core capabilities of HP ALM. HP ALM is the "System of Record" in our organization. It gives visibility for an artifact throughout the delivery chain, which cut downs unnecessary bottlenecks and noise during releases.
Read full review
Celoxis
I have not worked with related testing suite before but Tuskr has been the favorite platform for running test suites. It has generated positive leads from the company data by offering the necessary testing support. It is easy to integrate with other applications to suit business demands. The system generate results from various testing suites that can shared with our clients.
Read full review
Return on Investment
OpenText
  • ALM/QC has allowed for quick, traceable turnaround on relatively simple tasks
  • ALM/QC allows us to achieve our business objective of always being able to refer to a documented ticket for work being done.
  • ALM/QC navigation is not the easiest, so this aspect of the product has caused great frustration among new users.
Read full review
Celoxis
  • Make the process to create tests a lot smoother, so increase production value by reducing bugs released to customers.
  • Learning curves hinders some progress at the beginning.
  • Pricing is great for a small team, worth it with 30 days trial as well.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Tuskr Screenshots

Screenshot of Progress MonitoringScreenshot of Create Flexible test casesScreenshot of Distribute Workload