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 881,114 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

"IBM Rational ALM is a very good tool. I like the management and traceability features and the test management tool. The latter is not linked with the stories and fixed management. It is really useful, and we can create test plans. We can also test some metrics related to QA."

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

"You can customize the board according to your needs."

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) pros

"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."

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

"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."

"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."

"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."

"The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM."

"Defect management is very good."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

Cons

"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."

"The product must be more user-friendly."

"The GUI is a little bit outdated."

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

"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."

"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."

"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."

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

More IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) cons

"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."

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

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

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

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."

"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."

"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."

"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."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is not cheap."

"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."

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

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

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

"The solution is priceed high."

"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 full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."

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

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

881,114 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 9% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca 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

881,114 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.