IntelliCorp LiveCompare vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

"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."

"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."

"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"

"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."

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

"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."

"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."

"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."

"It is pricey."

"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."

"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."

"Costing is an area that 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."

"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."

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

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

"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."

"This is an expensive solution."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

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

"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."

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