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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText ALM Octane comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.9
OpenText ALM Octane reduces costs and increases efficiency by automating processes, streamlining project management, and enhancing analytics.
Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText ALM boosts testing efficiency, improving management visibility, cost savings, traceability, and mapping test cases to requirements.
The ability to generate audit evidence with a single click saves ten days of work for ten people, enabling them to focus on other tasks.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
OpenText ALM Octane's support is praised for responsiveness and expertise but needs improvement in follow-up times and complex cases.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's customer service varies, with effective high-level support but delays and mixed expertise at lower levels.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM Octane is scalable, integrates well with DevOps tools, but users face licensing issues despite reliable performance.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM Quality Center is praised for scalability, handling many users well, though licensing and resources can be restrictive.
We can expand the number of servers and resources as required.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
OpenText ALM Octane offers highly stable performance with minimal issues, regular updates, and efficient support addressing any concerns.
Sentiment score
7.2
Users find OpenText ALM stable, with occasional lags under heavy load, but overall high reliability and uptime with proper setup.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM Octane struggles with integration, flexibility, and user management, needing improvements in security, support, and Agile processes.
OpenText ALM faces high costs, complex interface, limited browser compatibility, and lacks flexible integration with Agile processes and tools.
While it aims to be as flexible as possible for a large enterprise application, sometimes there are limitations that may not meet specific organizational needs.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM Octane is costly but valued for its features and scalability, offering ROI and enhanced support.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high pricing necessitates strategic financial planning, with costs varying by deployment, user volume, and licensing.
OpenText ALM Octane is an expensive product.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM Octane offers extensive agile management, robust test management, seamless integrations, and flexibility for Agile and Waterfall methodologies.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for managing manual and automated testing efficiently.
Its ability to generate audit evidence with a single click is a significant advantage, as it saves considerable time and money compared to manual processes.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM Octane
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (8th)
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 ALM Octane is 6.1%, up from 5.6% 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

GeorgNauerz - PeerSpot reviewer
Makes team collaboration between IT and non-IT users easier with more transparency
The user experience is a lot better than any tool that I have used before. Overall, it is great. It has a smooth interface, which is very user-friendly. It makes it easier to work together and have more transparency and customization, which is very good. There are a lot of features where you can add fields, input individual fields, and input rules, like templated rule-based interaction between entities. The Backlog management is really interesting, because it is all in one place. You don't have a feature here and a feature there, instead you have the Backlog and testing using different backup items, like user storage features and tasks, all in one place. In addition, we are able to write documents, which we can transfer to backup items. Then, we can test them in the same solution without switching tools, or even switching from one part of the tool to another part, because it is all in one place. We use the solution’s Backlog and Team Backlog capabilities. They make our DevOps processes easier through transparency and asset collaboration.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
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

Is Jira better or would you go with Micro Focus ALM Octane?
Hi Netanya, Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the approp...
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Octane?
The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Octane?
OpenText ALM Octane is an expensive product. However, it offsets costs by saving time and money, thus creating a balance between expenses and benefits. Our organization with over 1500 users sees sa...
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 ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
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 ALM Octane and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.