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 #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 2.8% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.9% 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

1,394 Views
1,029 Comparison Views

75% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 206 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,936 Views
2,849 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 23, 2024

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management and OpenText ALM / Quality Center compete in the application lifecycle management category. OpenText ALM / Quality Center has the upper hand in features, which users find worth the cost, while IBM ELM shines in pricing and support.

Features: IBM ELM provides integration across engineering tasks such as requirements and design management, with real-time reporting allowing collaboration. OpenText ALM / Quality Center excels in test management with test planning, defect tracking, and analytics tools. IBM's key advantage is integration, whereas OpenText focuses on test management.

Room for Improvement: IBM ELM could enhance analytics capabilities, expand test management features, and simplify the user interface. OpenText ALM / Quality Center might benefit from a more streamlined deployment process, better integration with third-party tools, and improved scalability options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM ELM is praised for straightforward cloud and on-premise deployment, coupled with strong customer service throughout the deployment. OpenText ALM / Quality Center supports similar deployment options but is considered complex, necessitating comprehensive setup knowledge.

Pricing and ROI: IBM ELM offers a lower initial setup cost with a modular pricing strategy, enhancing ROI. OpenText ALM / Quality Center, despite higher upfront costs, provides a rich feature set ensuring high returns over time. IBM is marked by cost-effectiveness, whereas OpenText focuses on feature investment.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

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

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 831,369 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

12th

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

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

206

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is 2.8%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.9%, up from 5.6% 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

"The integration with Git works well."

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

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

"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."

"It's easy to use."

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

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

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

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) pros

"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."

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

"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"

"It is stable and reliable."

"It has a good response time."

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

"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."

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

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"The product must be more user-friendly."

"I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."

"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."

"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."

"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."

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

"The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex."

"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) cons

"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."

"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."

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."

"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"

"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."

"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"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."

"The solution is not cheap."

"The licensing fee is a little expensive."

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

"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."

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

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

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

"This is an expensive solution."

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

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

831,369 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

23%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Educational Organization

64%

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?

The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...

See all answers

Comparisons

Jira vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 30% 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 19% of the time

Polarion ALM vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 15% of the time

PTC Integrity vs IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

Compared 10% of the time

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) 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 11% 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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)

January 2025

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) report

Download IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

January 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

December 2024

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: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,369 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.