No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Application Qualit...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)
OpenText Silk Test
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Regression Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Application Quality Management is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 7.7%, up 5.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Silk Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 2.0% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management7.7%
Jira11.0%
Microsoft Azure DevOps9.8%
Other71.5%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.0%
Tricentis Tosca9.4%
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
Other80.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

GS
Partner at IS Nordic AS
Manages multiple releases seamlessly
We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.
JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The stability is very good."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong."
"Being a large SAP shop, having the ability to track individual issues to a defined release is a key function."
"To someone looking at Quality Center, I would tell them: It's a good tool to use and the support is good."
"ALM allows you to maintain complete end-to-end process."
"Customization is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Quality Center is a very powerful tool."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good, the solution offers very good detailed reports, and it's excellent for testing an application's performance levels."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."
 

Cons

"It is definitely overpriced. Most of the cost is for support that you rarely need if you have an onsite admin."
"It has a very large footprint, and takes an inordinate amount of time to load the components and seems to need to do this quite frequently."
"It is expensive."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"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."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"I would like to see where the interface is better as it's not as user friendly in this release that we have, so I am hoping that it is improved with the latest version."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help."
"At the moment, when we are trying to use this tool, we are finding quite a few compatibility issues between the tool and the applications on the test. We wouldn't consider it perfectly stable for that reason."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
914,805 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlen...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: August 2026.
914,805 professionals have used our research since 2012.