Codebeamer vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

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.