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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Panaya Test Dynamix 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.8
Organizations experience cost savings, efficiency gains, and collaboration benefits with OpenText ALM despite complexity challenges and uncertain financial metrics.
Sentiment score
5.0
Panaya Test Dynamix improved test efficiency, reduced manual efforts, and provided measurable benefits in productivity, cost-effectiveness, and resource allocation.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center support is mixed, with timeliness issues and varying effectiveness depending on support representatives.
Sentiment score
5.7
Users praise Panaya Test Dynamix customer service for prompt, knowledgeable, and efficient support with effective communication and problem-solving skills.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is scalable, supports large user bases, but may face performance issues and licensing challenges.
Sentiment score
7.3
Panaya Test Dynamix is praised for scalability, efficient test case management, integration, reliability, and performance under large workloads.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable but faces performance issues with increased users, poor networks, or outdated setups.
Sentiment score
7.8
Panaya Test Dynamix stands out for its stability, reliability, and efficient performance, excelling under heavy workflows and various conditions.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM users face high costs, outdated UI, limited integration, and automation, impacting performance and scalability.
Panaya Test Dynamix requires better customization, clearer error messages, improved performance, enhanced integration, easier navigation, and more comprehensive training resources.
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.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is costly, with complex licensing impacting ROI, prompting negotiation due to cheaper alternatives.
Panaya Test Dynamix offers competitive, scalable, and cost-effective pricing with customizable packages to meet diverse organizational testing needs.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers traceability, integrated management, scalability, and powerful API, supporting extensive testing and defect tracking.
Users praise Panaya Test Dynamix for its automation, detailed reporting, ease of use, seamless integration, and efficient defect management.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
206
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)
Panaya Test Dynamix
Ranking in Test Management Tools
19th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Defect Tracking (5th), Functional Testing Tools (27th), Regression Testing Tools (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.5%, up from 12.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Panaya Test Dynamix is 2.3%, up from 1.7% 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.
Alain Vanhaeght - PeerSpot reviewer
More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options
For the moment we are looking to automated testing, and there today apparently it is not working well with the application we want to test. So we are using an application on a terminal server and some quirks make it challenging to make automatic testing. It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we again have a network connection.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
64%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Computer Software Company
14%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Over 3000 leading enterprises worldwide including SONY, NICE, NEC, Shiseido, DHL, ABB and Grupo Bimbo
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Panaya Test Dynamix and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.