Codebeamer vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

PTC and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. PTC is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.4, while OpenText is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.1. PTC holds a 7.9% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.9% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of PTC users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Codebeamer

Read 12 Codebeamer reviews

3,469 Views
2,849 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 206 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,936 Views
2,849 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Codebeamer

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText ALM/Quality Center and Codebeamer are competitors in the application lifecycle management category. Codebeamer seems to have the upper hand due to its emphasis on traceability, collaboration, and regulatory compliance.

Features: OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides extensive customization, integrates with various automation tools, and maintains a comprehensive repository of testing artifacts. It offers strong linking capabilities between requirements, defects, and test cases, along with customizable reporting. Codebeamer emphasizes full traceability, excellent collaboration, and regulatory compliance with comprehensive lifecycle management features, such as an intuitive Smart Requirement View.

Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM/Quality Center faces challenges with high licensing costs, rigidity in its licensing model, and user interface complexity. It lacks support for non-Internet Explorer browsers. Codebeamer could improve with enhanced processing power and better integration with other platforms like Jira. Usability improvements in its UI and addressing small application glitches are areas for development.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM/Quality Center can be deployed across Public Cloud, On-premises, and Private Cloud environments, but support is critiqued for response time and knowledgeability. Inconsistent support experiences sometimes require escalation. Codebeamer offers flexible deployment options with On-premises, Private, and Hybrid Cloud availability. Customer service is generally responsive, though users have reported occasional delays in technical support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM/Quality Center is seen as expensive, with high licensing costs and a rigid pricing model. However, users find good ROI from its features for large-scale projects. Codebeamer is moderately priced, offering competitive pricing relative to other ALM solutions. It provides time savings and efficient project management, contributing positively to ROI, though its pricing is noted as being on the higher side.

To learn more, read our detailed Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 831,158 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Codebeamer

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

10th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

206

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Codebeamer is 7.9%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.9%, up from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Christian Wilmers

Process Method and Tool Developer at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees

Good complexity, easy to set up, and integrates with everything

There are a lot of bits and pieces that need to be improved. It's like a teenager. It's no longer a startup, yet not mature yet. It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now. For example, if you compared it to Jira, which is more mature, you can see that some things are done better due to the fact that Jira is older. It needs better integration for office documents, et cetera. There could be more user-friendly integration between office documents and requirements. Users might say the UI is complex, however, the solution covers so many items, you need to accept the complexity. It's an in-depth solution. For some people, it may be better to have special setups to set up the GUI to show only specific items to make it simpler. It would be nice to have some sort of mash-up GUI, which is possible in Jira so that we can customize to roles specific to, for example, problem management, testers, et cetera. They should have their own GUI related to their roles.

Read full review

Paul Grossman

Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."

"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."

"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."

"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."

"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."

"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."

"Utilizing Codebeamer has helped my organization by saving time in our processes."

"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."

More Codebeamer pros

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well."

"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."

"The solution's support team was always there to help."

"The product can scale."

"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."

"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"The primary challenge is adapting the standard product to our workflows and specific needs."

"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."

"Usability needs to be improved."

"Codebeamer is not completely compatible with our internal network setup."

"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."

"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."

"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."

"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."

More Codebeamer cons

"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."

"The reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."

"The QA needs improvement."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."

"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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is reasonably priced and in accordance with the industry standards."

"Codebeamer is not a cheap solution."

"They're not the most expensive product on the market, but they're not the cheapest either — I'd say codeBeamer ALM is moderately priced."

"Pricing is good when compared to similar ALM solutions."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"It's a perpetual license."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."

"The licensing fee is a little expensive."

"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

15%

Healthcare Company

Transportation Company

Educational Organization

64%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about codeBeamer ALM?

The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for codeBeamer ALM?

As I am not involved in purchasing the product, it is difficult for me to comment on the product's pricing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with codeBeamer ALM?

Codebeamer is not completely compatible with our internal network setup, which could be improved.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...

See all answers

Comparisons

PTC Integrity vs Codebeamer

Compared 29% of the time

Polarion ALM vs Codebeamer

Compared 23% of the time

Jira vs Codebeamer

Compared 15% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Codebeamer

Compared 12% of the time

More Codebeamer Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 22% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Codebeamer

January 2025

Download Codebeamer product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

January 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

codeBeamer ALM

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Learn More

PTC

OpenText

Overview

codeBeamer ALM is a market-leading Application Lifecycle Management platform. It is holistically integrated, and is packed with features that help you develop better products faster. Scale, monitor, control, and report on your entire development lifecycle conveniently, and comply with safety-critical regulations. Cut development time and costs.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

Sample Customers

Medtronic, Align Technology, Daimler, Samsung, Harman, Dassault

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

January 2025

Free Report: Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.