OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Tricentis LiveCompare comparison

"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."

"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."

"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."

"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."

"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."

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

"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."

"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."

"LiveCompare's unique reporting and advanced analytics streamline the entire migration process to SAP Hana, while minimizing costs, risk, and time."

"LiveCompare's Impact Analysis functionality identifies accurately what will be affected in production as the result of a change or an upgrade. It can also pinpoint accurately the scope of testing needed in anticipation of an upgrade."

"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."

"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."

"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."

"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."

"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."

"The QA needs improvement."

"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."

"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."

"From my experience with the product, I would suggest adding a feature that would allow a customer who is reviewing the LiveCompare results to be able to connect remotely with one of IntelliCorp's experts (aside from their support) in order to assist the customer to better understand the results."

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

"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."

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

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"

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

"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 enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."

"IntelliCorp is flexible in terms of licensing and the pricing structure. They are open to discussing a customer's specific requirements."