IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. IBM is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 3.1% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.6% mindshare. Additionally, 75% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

Read 18 IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) reviews

1,404 Views
991 Comparison Views

75% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,236 Views
2,427 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 30, 2025

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) and OpenText ALM Quality Center compete in lifecycle management and quality assurance within software development. IBM ELM leads in flexibility, whereas OpenText ALM Quality Center has a robust feature set, appealing to enterprises despite its price.

Features: IBM ELM integrates well with other systems and excels in requirements management, offering flexibility throughout development. On the other hand, OpenText ALM Quality Center focuses on end-to-end test management capabilities, detailed reporting, and defect tracking, enhancing quality assurance processes.

Room for Improvement: IBM ELM could enhance its user interface for a more intuitive experience and streamline its application for speed. OpenText ALM Quality Center could benefit from reducing complexity in its deployment process and improving adaptability to smaller enterprises. Both products could improve feature updates and integrations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM ELM offers flexible cloud and on-premise deployment options, making it easily adaptable to various IT environments, coupled with reliable customer service. OpenText ALM Quality Center has a complex deployment process that suits large-scale enterprises more, yet it provides effective customer service to address deployment challenges.

Pricing and ROI: IBM ELM incurs higher initial setup costs due to its comprehensive suite, but its long-term flexibility often results in better ROI in dynamic environments. OpenText ALM Quality Center, although costly, delivers a solid ROI with its exhaustive test management and defect tracking suite, valuable for firms focusing on intensive testing regimes.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

13th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.2

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 April 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is 3.1%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Harold Pogue

Global IT Director of Digital Platforms. Digital and Connected Commerce at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees

A complex deployment that is not stable, but is cloud-based

The team of 15 to 20 software engineers uses IBM Rational ALM and Jira for testing. They coupled different online packages together because the Duration Enterprise was impossible to use IBM Rational ALM did not help the organization and we ended up moving to another solution. The most valuable…

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

"At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online."

"The transition to a SaaS-based solution is a distinct advantage."

"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete."

"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."

"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."

"The most valuable feature is the reporting of the CPU usage on the dashboard."

"It's easy to use."

"One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) pros

"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."

"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."

"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"

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

"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."

"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM."

"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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"One of the complaints from users is that they have to click buttons too many times for just a simple task. Changing this would lead to a better user experience."

"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."

"The product must be more user-friendly."

"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."

"The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."

"I would like to see better reporting features. The out-of-box reporting is - I don't want to say limited - but the focus is on the Scrum and Sprint reports. We need more reporting features regarding the history of the work, tracking it more deeply."

"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."

"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) cons

"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."

"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."

"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."

"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."

"Is not very user-friendly."

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

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

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

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."

"IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."

"We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."

"The solution is not cheap."

"The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."

"The licensing fee is a little expensive."

"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."

"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."

"It's a perpetual license."

"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

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

25%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Financial Services Firm

Educational Organization

69%

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 IBM Rational ALM?

The solution is customizable.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Rational ALM?

The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex. For business users with no experience in IT, it can be particularly challenging to understand the UI and create test cas...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM Rational ALM?

We use IBM Rational ALM as part of our overall application suite for our manufacturing company. It is used by our engineering team to capture requirements, perform testing, and manage defects. Spec...

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

Jira vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 31% of the time

Codebeamer vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 22% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 20% of the time

Polarion ALM vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 12% of the time

PTC Integrity vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 11% of the time

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 21% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 20% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

March 2025

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) report

Download IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

March 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

IBM Engineering Rhapsody, Rational ALM, MKS

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

Overview

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management stands out for its robust Agile Scrum planning, lifecycle traceability, and tool management, offering cloud-based configurability and strong collaboration features.

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management provides rich capabilities for Agile project management, facilitating requirements and test management, configuration management, and version control. Its integration with IBM Doors supports comprehensive requirements handling, and the cloud-based platform enhances collaborative efficiency across teams. Despite needing advances in user-friendliness and reporting, ELM's global configuration and compliance features make it invaluable in demanding environments.

What are the key features of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management?

Scrum-based planning: Supports Agile methodologies with rich planning tools.
Lifecycle traceability: Offers complete traceability across development stages.
Customizable workflows: Adaptable workflows with Kanban for flexibility.
Git integration: Supports efficient version control and collaboration.
Global Configuration: Manages complex configurations globally.
Compliance and reporting: Ensures robust auditing and comprehensive reporting capabilities.

What benefits should be evaluated in reviews?

Collaboration: Enhanced sharing across platforms for seamless teamwork.
Cost-effectiveness: Delivers efficient tools that optimize project spend.
Comprehensive requirement handling: Facilitates detailed requirement management through IBM Doors integration.

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management is vital in sectors like automotive and manufacturing, where it implements Agile frameworks to manage requirements, conduct testing, and handle defects. It integrates into development pipelines ensuring live traceability and visibility, supporting critical engineering processes efficiently.

IBM

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

Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

February 2025

Free Report: IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) 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.