OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText Silk Central are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1, while OpenText Silk Central is ranked #21. OpenText ALM / Quality Center holds a 13.2% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText Silk Central’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText ALM / Quality Center users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of OpenText Silk Central users who would recommend it.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 205 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

2,668 Views
1,124 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Central

Read 9 OpenText Silk Central reviews

245 Views
156 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

OpenText Silk Central

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

OpenText ALM/Quality Center and OpenText Silk Central are both competitive solutions for application lifecycle management and quality assurance. OpenText Silk Central seems to have the upper hand due to its advanced automation and ease of use.

Features: OpenText ALM/Quality Center is praised for its comprehensive test planning, tracking capabilities, and robust integration with other tools. OpenText Silk Central is highlighted for its advanced test automation, ease of use in creating and managing test cases, and higher automation flexibility.

Room for Improvement: User reviews indicate that OpenText ALM/Quality Center could improve in performance, scalability, and efficiency for larger projects. OpenText Silk Central users suggest better documentation, more intuitive navigation, and enhanced reporting features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM/Quality Center is seen as complex during deployment, often requiring specialized support. Its customer service is rated highly but can be slow. OpenText Silk Central users report a smoother deployment process with customer service being responsive and helpful, providing a better overall experience.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM/Quality Center has a higher initial setup cost, potentially significant ROI for larger enterprises. OpenText Silk Central offers more cost-effective pricing and a quicker ROI, making it suitable for smaller to mid-sized organizations. Users believe Silk Central provides better value for the price due to its efficient features and lower cost.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 824,053 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

205

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)

OpenText Silk Central

Ranking in Test Management Tools

21st

Average Rating

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Design Automation (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.2%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.5%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn.

CTO at Marco Technology

Has an initial setup phase that is easy to manage

The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard. The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network. There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.

Read full review

it_user685080

Test Governance at Poste Italiane

A powerful platform and strong technical support help us to make the right decisions

We are primarily interested in improving the flexibility to customize parts of the tool. At this point, we feel that the customization is bad. For example, we would like to be able to automatize internal projects. We would like like to see the visibility improved, and want to perform certain tests faster. We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end. This is very important to us. In terms of usability and the interface, a few small improvements can lead to a lot of benefits. The interface is good but can be improved. The section on managing requirements for testing has to be improved. This is an old feature that has not been updated at the same rate as the rest of the tool.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."

"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."

"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."

"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."

"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."

"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."

"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."

"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."

Cons

"The performance could be faster."

"It is pricey."

"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."

"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."

"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."

"We are looking for more automation capabilities."

"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."

"Costing is an area that needs improvement."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"The solution was expensive for us."

"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."

"It's a perpetual license."

"This is an expensive solution."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

63%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 22% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

December 2024

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Buyer's Guide

Test Management Tools

December 2024

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

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

Learn More

OpenText

Overview

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

Silk Central is an open test management solution which unifies all test assets into one easy-to-use planning, tracking, reporting and execution hub. Silk Central enables you to gain control, collaboration and traceability across all areas of your software testing, whether your methodology is Agile, Traditional or hybrid. Silk Central provides integration of requirements, manual and automated tests, defect tools and your test execution, giving full traceability of the quality of your software testing regardless of role.

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central

December 2024

Free Report: OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText Silk Central report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.