aqua and Micro Focus Quality Center are both test management solutions that can also be used for the entire product lifecycle. The biggest difference is the price: 200 aqua users would cost you less than 10 QC licences.
But what about the features?
aqua offers free AI testing
aqua is at least $50,000 cheaper
Micro Focus brings traceability concerns
AI is a rapidly developing tech, so we will look at cutting-edge tech rather than the baseline. Hereās what you should expect from an AI-powered test management solution:
Artificial intelligence in QA is usually a small in-house effort. aqua went further by adapting OpenAI’s GPT language model to the needs and nuances of software testing. Unlike public ChatGPT, aquaās AI Copilot actually āreadsā the context of your project and all your tests to give proper suggestions.
Test management is the main reason we are looking at these two tools. You should consider various aspects of handling test cases as well as traceability-minded features. These include:
aqua and Quality Center are both mature test management solutions. They cover all key QA features, including ones that would take any new competitor years to reach in their backlog. The primary difference is item history: aqua is better for both tracking progress and complying with regulators.
Most tools rely on automation via common third-party tools that QA specialists have been using for over a decade. The experience is much better when your test management solution has native integrations for industry-leading tools. REST API support is a must if you do not want to be at the vendorās mercy for integrations.
Both tools are designed to synergise with industry-leading solutions. aqua has more integrations with test automation tools, while Quality Center has better Microsoft 365 compatibility. In both cases, you can use REST API to make a custom integration for any tool.
Tools differ in how much money they request upfront and what scaling looks like. Some criteria here are:
There is a major gap in flexibility between aqua and Quality Center. The gap is QCās setup cost of over $50,000 that you pay every year. Billing for users is annual as well. Given the upfront costs, it is surprising that you get free manual QA licences from aqua and not Quality Center.
On-Premise deployment is a must in many industries, yet vendors wonāt explicitly say if they donāt offer it. Depending on your security policies and scale, deploying in a non-vendor Cloud is a beneficial option too.
Even software giants drop On-Premise support to stay lean, but not aqua. The feature set keeps up with the Cloud version, as demanded by government and financial clients. Quality Center has both options as well.
QA dashboards serve two vital purposes. They help the QA team track their progress, but they also make other teams aware of potential bottlenecks. At a minimum, you should be able to include any data and share dashboards with the team.
Both solutions provide visual dashboards to display and slice any custom data. There are enough features to make dashboards insightful for any team member. You can also set up KPI Alerts to be notified when a key metric went out of order.
Reporting is important for both internal and external stakeholders. The goal here is to get what you need with as little or as much effort as possible. When a tool offers both a template library and rich customisation, that is a good start.
Reporting is a strong suite for both tools as well. They have a template library, but the main strength is customisation. You can make reports with any data, use data from other solutions, and even add external images. aqua has a few more elements than Quality Center, including pivot tables.
Precise user management is essential when working on multiple projects and/or working with external specialists. It will also save you a lot of pain from running crowd testing in the same test management solution.
Granular user management helps to keep information about projects on a need-to-know basis. This can be both your own preference and a regulatory requirement. Advanced user management also helps when you work with freelancers, onboard interns, or conduct user acceptance testing.
This is not a hard requirement, but you may be interested in a test management solution that also handles the entire product lifecycle. This is a great money saver as you need licences from fewer vendors, and the synergy should save you some hours as well.
aqua and Quality Center are QA-minded tools, but you can execute your entire project with them. Using just one tool instead of 4 is a great way to save money. This benefit, however, does not apply to Quality Center where you exceed $100,000/year with just 10 users.
Here are a few things people like and dislike about both tools.
āI was surprised to find such a comprehensive and mature tool for test management in the German market without having taken it seriously beforehand.ā
Jƶrg GroĆmann
Head of Development at Bank 11
āVery old-style interface. Not easy to design custom query for dashboarding purposesā
Marcello M.
QA Manager at a > 1000 emp.
āThe reporting is meaningful and provides a good basis for decisions. After the employees have used aqua, they recognize the added value very quickly.ā
Thomas Haeske
Head of Organisation/IT at Berlin Hyp
āNot user friendly, it's confusing and not always helpful. The audit trail for each defect doesn't do a good job of recording past history and hence, data becomes hard to analyse.ā
A G2 Reviewer
Management Consulting (a > 1000 emp. Enterprise)
āManual test cases are easily automated with aqua. Seamless integration with test automation tools helps here.ā
Jƶrn-Hendrick Sƶrensen
Test Manager at KBA
āALM hangs when we export more test cases to excel and it is slow. We never had a good experience with the support. Automation scripts kick off from ALM will be pretty slow when compared to kicking off the script directly from UFT.ā
A G2 Reviewer
Computer Software (a > 1000 emp. Enterprise)
āI was surprised to find such a comprehensive and mature tool for test management in the German market without having taken it seriously beforehand.ā
Jƶrg GroĆmann
Head of Development at Bank 11
āThe reporting is meaningful and provides a good basis for decisions. After the employees have used aqua, they recognize the added value very quickly.ā
Thomas Haeske
Head of Organisation/IT at Berlin Hyp
āManual test cases are easily automated with aqua. Seamless integration with test automation tools helps here.ā
Jƶrn-Hendrick Sƶrensen
Test Manager at KBA
āVery old-style interface. Not easy to design custom query for dashboarding purposesā
Marcello M.
QA Manager at a > 1000 emp.
āNot user friendly, it's confusing and not always helpful. The audit trail for each defect doesn't do a good job of recording past history and hence, data becomes hard to analyse.ā
A G2 Reviewer
Management Consulting (a > 1000 emp. Enterprise)
āALM hangs when we export more test cases to excel and it is slow. We never had a good experience with the support. Automation scripts kick off from ALM will be pretty slow when compared to kicking off the script directly from UFT.ā
A G2 Reviewer
Computer Software (a > 1000 emp. Enterprise)
aqua is a proven but not stale solution. It brings actual AI innovation, has a better integrations suite, and matches Micro Focus Quality Center in all areas. Below is a summary comparison of aqua and Micro Focus Quality center.