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
11th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Application Requirements Management (4th)
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
206
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Jama Connect is 2.9%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.9%, 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

David Wilson - PeerSpot reviewer
Mainly used for requirements management, but its validation piece is not time-efficient at all
Like anything, Jama Connect relies highly on the company's culture because I found the whole review process to sound good, but it does not work in reality. Companies that use the tool are all pretty immature with requirements management, and therefore, they don't have the culture of doing that. You're always chasing them up and end up having review meetings, and no one pays attention to those review notices. The solution is very software-centric, and its validation piece is not time-efficient at all. It's very desktop verification and validation. You need to have it running and loading, which is not efficient. It's very cumbersome and overhead-intensive for verification management.
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."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"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."
"The relationship mapping feature is especially helpful, as it allows us to connect different requirements and compliance-related documentation."
"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."
"Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
 

Cons

"More automation could speed up workflows, flag errors more timely, and eliminate manual steps."
"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."
"I have inquired about pricing for this solution but have not yet heard anything, so their response time in this regard is something that should be improved."
"Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects."
"There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement."
"There are delays sometimes from the Jama Connect team in resolving issues."
"The solution is expensive."
"There are a few areas where Jama Connect can improve. One suggestion is to enhance the built-in feature of profile generation."
"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."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"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."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Jama Connect is a little pricy."
"The cost seems very competitive with other offerings."
"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."
"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"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's a perpetual license."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
27%
Healthcare Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Educational Organization
64%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

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?
There are delays sometimes from the Jama Connect team in resolving issues. It's important to maintain and educate customers about the solutions they have.
What is your primary use case for Jama Connect?
Jama Connect is used to integrate solutions such as the Google App Store and Microsoft Azure. It provides single identity provider access, enabling Gmail access or Google access for users.
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?
The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...
 

Also Known As

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

Learn More

 

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: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.