Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ConformIQ Creator vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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

ConformIQ Creator
Ranking in Test Management Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (23rd)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of ConformIQ Creator is 1.3%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 12.3%, down from 12.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1518657 - PeerSpot reviewer
Feature-rich stable tool with multiple options to control output, good integration with other tools, and knowledgeable support team
The core functionality of the tool is automated test generation of optimized test suite; the tool has extensive list of options for the same. The product's integration with other tools sets it apart. It has integrations with many upstream (for requirements mapping) and downstream (export of test cases to various tools) products. It is like "plug-and-play". For any customized downstream tool, like our proprietary automation framework, support is provided for custom development. It is has features - Business AD - to use in Agile implementations. The latest version seems to have support for BDD/Gherkin as well, which we have not used much.
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool has the ability to integrate with various requirement management, test management, and version control tools."
"Though optimized and automated test generation is the core functionality, the product's integration with other tools sets it apart."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
 

Cons

"I would like to see the output data optionally used as input for the model, as further action in the flow."
"It would be helpful to have a feature in the tool's UI to map object locators within the system."
"Even though the 4.1 version is a far-improved version from its earlier avatars, the performance of test generation is still an issue on real-time models we have."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"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."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"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."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."
"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
43%
Computer Software Company
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Logistics Company
5%
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
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.
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...
 

Also Known As

Conformiq Creator, Conformiq Transformer
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya, Daimler, Ericsson
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about ConformIQ Creator vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.