Inflectra SpiraTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. Inflectra is ranked #24, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. Inflectra holds a 0.8% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 13.7% mindshare. Additionally, 76% of Inflectra users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Inflectra SpiraTest

Read 25 Inflectra SpiraTest reviews

125 Views
65 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

2,359 Views
957 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Inflectra SpiraTest

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Inflectra SpiraTest are both leading solutions in application lifecycle management and quality assurance. User data indicates Inflectra SpiraTest often has an edge in features, making it preferred by many despite higher costs.

Features: OpenText ALM / Quality Center is valued for its comprehensive test management capabilities, robustness, and extensive functionality. Inflectra SpiraTest stands out for its intuitive design, seamless integration with various platforms and tools, and efficient project management features.

Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM / Quality Center could improve its reporting module, create more intuitive navigation, and enhance its user experience. Inflectra SpiraTest users suggest enhancing automation, increasing flexibility in custom reporting, and expanding its functional depth.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Deploying OpenText ALM / Quality Center can be complex and time-consuming, though it often receives positive ratings for customer service. Inflectra SpiraTest offers a smoother, faster deployment process, but has mixed reviews on customer support, with some users reporting delayed responses.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM / Quality Center has a higher initial setup cost, but users feel the ROI justifies the expense due to its extensive features. Inflectra SpiraTest is more cost-effective initially and delivers good ROI, balancing its higher price point with superior functionality.

To learn more, read our detailed Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,296 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

Inflectra SpiraTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

24th

Average Rating

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Requirements Management (12th)

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

207

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Inflectra SpiraTest is 0.8%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.7%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Jason Lopez

Test Manager at a engineering company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Intuitive enough and easy to learn, but in terms of folder organization, it could be better

Inflectra SpiraTest is the new kid on the block compared to Jira and Azure. Still, when I started exploring the tool, I realized that it was no different from other tools I've used in the past, but it all boils down to adaptability because the features would always be more or less the same. I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it.

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 user-friendly features are the most valuable. For example, migration of requirements and migration of test cases and the creation of traceability. You have various reports that you need. The plug-ins that are available to connect with the other tools."

"The features of this product most valuable to me were the test case management and the visual status, by which it was displayed."

"The reporting functionality helps vendors and technical resources identify bugs and issues that need to be addressed. The simple dashboard-style home page makes training end-user testers simple and straightforward. The actual testing UI is VERY straightforward and very intuitive for the end-users that test the system since very often we pull from business and operational users to help test new systems."

"I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it."

"The ability to reuse test cases already used across projects is the most valuable feature of this solution. We don't need to create new ones."

"We were able to add a step-by-step procedure for someone to follow to assist in testing."

"Inflectra SpiraTest has a lot of functionality, which is good."

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

"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."

"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."

"The integration with UFT is nice."

"The product can scale."

"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."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM."

"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"It should develop integration with JIRA. We have some complexities which caused us not to decide to integrate it with our JIRA, like synchronous data."

"The user interface is slightly complicated and not very consistent. It could be more user friendly."

"Being able to add scripting for testing can and does save a lot of time. When you are able to just ‘run’ a test case rather than manually add it and run it."

"The UI for managing test cases, test sets, test runs could be a little more integrated, currently, these feel disjointed at times and confusing. Also, the test steps page needs to display the test steps closer to the top of the UI so as to not have to scroll down to find."

"Migrating is not very easy. It depends on the organization, how efficient and effective the decision-making process is. The plug-ins should be easier and more integrated rather than the user trying to integrate the tools which are more popular, like Jira et al."

"Two areas that can stand improvement: integration with third party products and making it more intuitive."

"The folder organization in Inflectra SpiraTest could be better, though I cannot comment whether that is structure-related. Most of what I need would probably be in the tool, but as a test manager, I need to be able to create dashboards and reports easily."

"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."

"We are looking for more automation capabilities."

"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 support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."

"We would like to have support for agile development."

"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."

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

"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing was excellent. I would recommend the enterprise solution."

"I Googled the pricing for Inflectra SpiraTest, and it's about $4,000 annually."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

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

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."

"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."

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

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

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

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Government

Educational Organization

68%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 21% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra SpiraTest

March 2025

Download Inflectra SpiraTest product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

March 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

SpiraTest, Spira

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Overview

SpiraTest is an integrated Requirements and Quality Management solution that manages your project's Requirements, Test Cases, Releases, Defects and Issues in one environment, with complete traceability throughout. After defining your project's requirements, you generate the test cases and test steps that validate the functionality. The test execution modules allows users to run through the tests, logging defects/issues as they go. SpiraTest is Fully Web-Based. Free 30-Day Trial.

Inflectra

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

- Morningstar - Deutsch Bank - Sopra Group - Booz Allen & Hamilton - UBS - US Government

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

February 2025

Free Report: Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.