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

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Engineering Test Management improves efficiency, reduces defects, integrates well with IBM software, enhancing workflow and providing cost savings.
Sentiment score
6.8
Organizations experience cost savings, efficiency gains, and collaboration benefits with OpenText ALM despite complexity challenges and uncertain financial metrics.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Engineering Test Management's customer support is praised for responsiveness and effectiveness, with improvements in response times and satisfactory experiences.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center support is mixed, with timeliness issues and varying effectiveness depending on support representatives.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM Engineering Test Management scales smoothly for large organizations with thousands of users and test cases, including automated ones.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is scalable, supports large user bases, but may face performance issues and licensing challenges.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
IBM Engineering Test Management is reliable and stable, with good performance but occasionally impacted by server configuration and database space issues.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable but faces performance issues with increased users, poor networks, or outdated setups.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM Engineering Test Management requires a user-friendly interface, enhanced usability, data handling, hierarchical structuring, and seamless integration with automated pipelines.
OpenText ALM users face high costs, outdated UI, limited integration, and automation, impacting performance and scalability.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
 

Setup Cost

<p>IBM Engineering Test Management provides robust features and customization with flexible pricing, ideal for large enterprises needing comprehensive test management.</p>
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is costly, with complex licensing impacting ROI, prompting negotiation due to cheaper alternatives.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

IBM Engineering Test Management is praised for fast, reliable customizable workflows, and robust integrations, particularly in testing and tracking functionality.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers traceability, integrated management, scalability, and powerful API, supporting extensive testing and defect tracking.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
 

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
206
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 2.8%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.5%, up from 12.8% 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.
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Educational Organization
64%
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: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.