Inflectra SpiraTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. Inflectra is ranked #25, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. Inflectra holds a 0.8% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 12.3% 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

127 Views
64 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

2,234 Views
894 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 845,040 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

25th

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 April 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 12.3%, down from 12.9% 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 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."

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

"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 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."

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

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

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

"It is stable and reliable."

"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."

"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."

"The product can scale."

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

"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."

"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."

"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

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

"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."

"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."

"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 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."

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

"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."

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

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

"We are looking for more automation capabilities."

"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"

"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."

"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."

"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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."

"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

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

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Government

Educational Organization

69%

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 21% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 20% 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

845,040 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.