IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. IBM is ranked #13 with an average rating of 6.5, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.2. IBM holds a 3.9% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 4.6% mindshare. Additionally, 77% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

Read 20 IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) reviews

1,624 Views
1,608 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

5,872 Views
3,523 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

OpenText Application Qualit...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management and OpenText Application Quality Management are competing in lifecycle and quality management. ELM leads in feature richness and integration, while OpenText is cost-effective, with strong deployment and customer support.

Features: IBM ELM is noted for comprehensive traceability, integration within its ecosystem, and robust process automation. OpenText offers efficient test management, defect tracking, and flexibility for varied project needs.

Room for Improvement: IBM ELM could improve in deployment complexity, making it less resource-intensive. Additionally, clarifying features for users may enhance usability. OpenText might enhance integration with other systems, provide more comprehensive analytics, and offer customizable workflow options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM ELM has a complex deployment model ideal for businesses needing integrated solutions but requires significant resources and time. OpenText is streamlined with strong support, allowing quick adaptation and issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: IBM ELM involves higher setup costs with extensive features justifying long-term ROI. OpenText offers competitive pricing and a quicker return due to efficient implementation, appealing to budget-focused businesses.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,282 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

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Application Qualit...

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is 3.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 4.6%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	4.6%
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)	3.9%
Other	91.5%

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Juergen Albrecht

Managing Director at CCC Systems Engineering Suisse GmbH

Combining tools for effective data analysis while customization and integration need improvement

The most valuable feature is how IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) allows me to present to the customer what the actual software, even hardware, will do. It helps them gain an impression of the complexity of the functionality and find an easier way to decide whether to implement it. A picture says more than one thousand words, which is why I work with the combination of ELM and the specification of DOORS. The automation capabilities I built use column-based scripts for analysis to search, fetch, and transfer information. When I open modules, it automatically analyzes the changes since the last opening by me.

Read full review

Greg Stone

Partner at IS Nordic AS

Manages multiple releases seamlessly

We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.

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."

"The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."

"The solution is customizable."

"I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten."

"We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space."

"Everyone in a team can work on the same platform and share the same information."

"The planning feature is rich with Scrum concepts: Sprint, Sprint retrospective, the rules in the Scrum framework."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) pros

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."

"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."

"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."

"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."

"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."

"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."

"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."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

Cons

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

"The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."

"Some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer."

"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 stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."

"In the next release, we expect a traceability metrics configuration where we can configure the user stories. We also expect them to improve or simplify the query process."

"The GUI is a little bit outdated."

"The product must be more user-friendly."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) cons

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."

"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is not cheap."

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

"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."

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

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

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

"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."

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

"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."

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

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."

More OpenText Application Quality Management 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

881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

22%

Government

11%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Performing Arts

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	12

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	39
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	162

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?

I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was i...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM Rational ALM?

For companies in heavily regulated industries who are doing product development, IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is a good tool. It helps them create documentation that satisfies auditors.

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?

Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlen...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.

See all answers

Comparisons

Jira vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 19% of the time

Codebeamer vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 16% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 10% of the time

Polarion ALM vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 9% of the time

Atlassian ALM vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 9% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 7% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

January 2026

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) report

Download IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

January 2026

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management 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, OpenText Quality Manager

Overview

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) offers an integrated platform with customizable workflows, Scrum planning tools, and resource management features, enhancing project execution and collaboration.

ELM supports Agile and Scrum project management through its integration with tools like Git and IBM Doors, providing cataloging, traceability, and reporting capabilities. While users benefit from requirement management and dashboard functionalities, the interface and reporting could be improved for better navigation and customization. Its cloud-based architecture facilitates compliance and auditing, making it a valuable tool for engineering teams focusing on configuration and version control.

What are the essential features of IBM ELM?

Customizable Workflows: Tailor project processes to specific needs for adaptability.
Scrum-Based Planning: Facilitate Agile project management with Scrum tools.
Resource Management: Efficiently allocate and track resource usage.
Integration Capabilities: Seamlessly integrate with Git and IBM Doors for enhanced traceability.
Global Configuration: Manage configurations across locations for consistency.

What benefits should users consider?

Compliance Support: Provides tools essential for meeting industry regulations.
Collaboration: Streamlines team communication for smooth project execution.
Stakeholder Alignment: Enhances visibility and alignment with personalized dashboards.
Traceability: Ensures complete tracking of requirements and changes for accountability.

ELM is widely used in the automotive and manufacturing sectors for managing requirements and monitoring performance. Engineering teams leverage ELM for Agile methodologies, with central teams deploying it for end-to-end development processes including requirement gathering and backlog management. Stability and improved integration support remain critical implementation areas, along with enhanced governance features for comprehensive application.

IBM

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

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 Application Quality Management

December 2025

Free Report: IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,282 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management 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.