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

IBM Engineering Test Management vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 2.8%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.2%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Has an initial setup phase that is easy to manage
The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard. The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network. There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"It was really good, customizable, and easy to use."
 

Cons

"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"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."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools."
"Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Educational Organization
63%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational Quality Manager?
The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing.
What needs improvement with IBM Rational Quality Manager?
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then pu...
What is your primary use case for IBM Rational Quality Manager?
We create test cases, and then we need to plan a new task plan feature from the existing task case file and execute the test results, which will be saved in RQM. So that is how we are using the too...
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?
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...
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.