Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Jama Connect vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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

Jama Connect
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
12th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Application Requirements Management (4th)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Jama Connect is 3.1%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.7%, up from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Lasse Mikkonen - PeerSpot reviewer
Traceability has improved documentation for auditors and regulators
The collaboration feature in Jama Connect could be improved because it is only used by a limited number of people within an organization due to license costs. For broader collaboration that includes departments like marketing and engineering, many still rely on tools like Slack ( /products/slack-reviews ) or Confluence ( /products/atlassian-confluence-reviews ). Additionally, there are areas where usability and configurability could be enhanced.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In Jama Connect, users have the capability to view and manage all test cases directly within the platform and execute them. The entire product specification, spanning various domains such as electrical, mechanical, software, and testing, is consolidated within Jama Connect."
"Technical support answers fairly quickly compared to others like IBM or Atlassian. They also offer quite a good knowledge base for advanced cases and how to plan it, etc. via videos that they provide. They are quite useful."
"It is good at requirements management and test management."
"You can get full traceability with any other system. It also includes a test module, and you build the traceability matrix incrementally throughout the development process."
"The relationship mapping feature is especially helpful, as it allows us to connect different requirements and compliance-related documentation."
"Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the single identity provider capability, which simplifies the integration with various platforms, like Google App Store and Microsoft Azure, for providing user access."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
 

Cons

"The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities."
"t is rather slow, so the speed of the process and consuming information should be improved. It doesn't have a nice way of viewing information. We would like to see better interfaces for consuming information."
"The initial setup could be better, it's complicated."
"I believe one of the weak points is the reporting side. You must export inter-readable reports from Jama if you do not use the system as a repository for your design history file. Jama is great if you keep it in Jama, but reporting out requires some customization to get it right."
"The solution is very software-centric, and its validation piece is not time-efficient at all."
"I think there's room for improvement, especially with the review process. Reviews should be integrated with requirement evaluation instead of being separate from it. The review should not run parallel to the requirement."
"The solution is expensive."
"The collaboration feature in Jama Connect could be improved because it is only used by a limited number of people within an organization due to license costs."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"The solution's reporting could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"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."
"It is pricey."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"The performance could be faster."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you want to have creative licenses, pricing may be an issue with the licenses, as it can become quite expensive over time to serve many people."
"To have a single source for all the requirements and all the change requests our company gets is the most valuable feature. It has also helped us to keep track of reviews."
"The cost seems very competitive with other offerings."
"Jama Connect is a little pricy."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"It's a perpetual license."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
28%
Healthcare Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Jama Connect?
I like Jama Connect because it's easy to use and understand. The widgets are great, and linking is straightforward. The solution is not complex compared to its competitors.
What needs improvement with Jama Connect?
The collaboration feature in Jama Connect could be improved because it is only used by a limited number of people within an organization due to license costs. For broader collaboration that include...
What is your primary use case for Jama Connect?
I primarily work with Jama Connect ( /products/jama-connect-reviews ) for requirements management.
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?
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Deloitte, SpaceX, Omnigon, Delft University
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Jama Connect vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.