We performed a comparison between Inflectra SpiraTest and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features of this product most valuable to me were the test case management and the visual status, by which it was displayed."
"Inflectra SpiraTest has a lot of functionality, which is good."
"The user-friendly features are the most valuable. For example, migration of requirements and migration of test cases and the creation of traceability. You have various reports that you need. The plug-ins that are available to connect with the other tools."
"I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it."
"We were able to add a step-by-step procedure for someone to follow to assist in testing."
"The reporting functionality helps vendors and technical resources identify bugs and issues that need to be addressed. The simple dashboard-style home page makes training end-user testers simple and straightforward. The actual testing UI is VERY straightforward and very intuitive for the end-users that test the system since very often we pull from business and operational users to help test new systems."
"The ability to reuse test cases already used across projects is the most valuable feature of this solution. We don't need to create new ones."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"It has a good response time."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"It should develop integration with JIRA. We have some complexities which caused us not to decide to integrate it with our JIRA, like synchronous data."
"Migrating is not very easy. It depends on the organization, how efficient and effective the decision-making process is. The plug-ins should be easier and more integrated rather than the user trying to integrate the tools which are more popular, like Jira et al."
"The UI for managing test cases, test sets, test runs could be a little more integrated, currently, these feel disjointed at times and confusing. Also, the test steps page needs to display the test steps closer to the top of the UI so as to not have to scroll down to find."
"Being able to add scripting for testing can and does save a lot of time. When you are able to just ‘run’ a test case rather than manually add it and run it."
"The user interface is slightly complicated and not very consistent. It could be more user friendly."
"The folder organization in Inflectra SpiraTest could be better, though I cannot comment whether that is structure-related. Most of what I need would probably be in the tool, but as a test manager, I need to be able to create dashboards and reports easily."
"Two areas that can stand improvement: integration with third party products and making it more intuitive."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"The QA needs improvement."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Inflectra SpiraTest is ranked 17th in Test Management Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. Inflectra SpiraTest is rated 7.4, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Inflectra SpiraTest writes "Intuitive enough and easy to learn, but in terms of folder organization, it could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Inflectra SpiraTest is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS and Jama Connect, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
