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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 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 ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th)
OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.7%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.5%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
it_user685080 - PeerSpot reviewer
We have many possibilities to customize the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration.
We manage more than 400 users and 120,000 test cases / year in our Test and Defect Management solution based on Silk Central, in an enterprise multi-company environment (postal, banking, insurance, telco, mobile, government, business), so for us the most valuable feature is flexibility. With Silk Central we have many possibilities for customizing the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration. In addition we have great support from Micro Focus and real collaboration to drive future direction and new features. The other valuable feature is the easy to use and immediate onboarding of manual testers and general users and test managers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
 

Cons

"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"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."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."
"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.