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 #4 with an average rating of 8.1. PTC holds a 7.9% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.6% 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

3,424 Views
2,808 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,771 Views
2,733 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 832,162 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

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

207

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 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 5.6%, up from 5.4% 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

"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."

"It is a stable solution."

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

"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."

"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."

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

"Codebeamer is user-friendly"

More Codebeamer pros

"The product's initial setup phase is easy."

"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."

"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."

"It was really good, customizable, and easy to use."

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."

"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."

"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."

"Defect management is very good."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"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."

"Usability needs to be improved."

"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."

"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."

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

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

More Codebeamer cons

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

"The initial setup was not straightforward."

"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."

"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."

"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."

"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."

"We are looking for more automation capabilities."

"The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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."

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

"Codebeamer is not a cheap solution."

"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."

"It's a perpetual license."

"The solution was expensive for us."

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

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

832,162 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

31%

Computer Software Company

15%

Healthcare Company

Transportation Company

Educational Organization

65%

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?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

PTC Integrity vs Codebeamer

Compared 29% of the time

Polarion ALM vs Codebeamer

Compared 25% of the time

Jira vs Codebeamer

Compared 15% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Codebeamer

Compared 12% of the time

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs Codebeamer

Compared 7% of the time

More Codebeamer Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 23% 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 12% 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

February 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

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.

PTC

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.

OpenText

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

832,162 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.