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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText AccuRev 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

OpenText AccuRev
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
23rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 April 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText AccuRev is 0.1%, down from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Sameh-Hablas - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps us with our compliance goals, native quality management systems and with the legacy systems in our organization
To improve the product, it needs some enhancement to the application's interface to be more user-friendly. The product has all the features that we need and we can depend upon it. My issue with the product is that it is not easy to use without a guide or a proper manual. That is my point. It is not very friendly to use. For example, we may need the application to be more friendly in other sorts of ways. If we have an integrated module that allows access to the features we want through one click, you do not need to make it two or three clicks on the screen. The interface can be better designed to easily provide access to the features you need. The feature I would like to see in the next release is just for it to be more friendly to use and to be like a smart application that intuits your movement through the application. It needs to be something that works smoothly and intelligent without any complicated navigation of screens.
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

"The solution is 100% scalable. It's much more scalable than the customer's capacity for implementing it. We do plan to increase usage ourselves."
"The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"The most beneficial feature of test management in this solution is its ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
 

Cons

"The pricing should be more competitive."
"In the next release, I would like to have a repository for the code which is embedded. Apart from that, it has everything I need."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"What I'm missing from the solution is a repository for the code. Something like Git, for example. Some sort of depository for the code that is embedded."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"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."
"Is not very 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."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a lower cost than other top competetors."
"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."
"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"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."
"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
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

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.
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

Micro Focus AccuRev, AccuRev
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Akcelerant, SDL, CSG, Avid Technology Inc., Azimuth Systems Inc, Drivecam, Endgame, f5 Networks, Follett Software, Hyland Software, Indanet, Kronos, McAfee
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText AccuRev and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.