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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Original Software Qualify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)
Original Software Qualify
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
31st
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Original Software Qualify is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management5.5%
Original Software Qualify0.8%
Other93.7%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities
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 bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Group Integration Tools Manager at TITAN
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"From my service provider perspective, the best features of the product are real-time tracking and reporting capabilities, which help with project management by enabling real-time tracking and reporting."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
 

Cons

"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."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer."
"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."
"The initial setup was not straightforward."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"The QA needs improvement."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"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."
"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."
"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Performing Arts
9%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise162
No data available
 

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
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: March 2026.
883,824 professionals have used our research since 2012.