OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Parasoft Development Testing Platform comparison

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform

Download the complete report

Helped 817,354 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

5th

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

205

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Parasoft Development Testin...

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

16th

Ranking in Test Management Tools

19th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Requirements Management (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.7%, up from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft Development Testing Platform is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

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

Ujjwal Gupta

Project Lead at Mphasis

A complete test management tool that facilitates developers' unit testing

Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time. This would reduce the execution time, helping achieve goals on time, and with less effort required. I use the different licenses to manage this issue and it can be controlled by different users for functional testing.

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

"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."

"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."

"The stability is very good."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy."

"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

"The most valuable feature is code coverage."

"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."

Cons

"Recently, I faced some issues while using the product on Mac-based machines, as I was unable to upload test cases."

"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."

"The reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things."

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

"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."

"Costing is an area that needs improvement."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

"The solution's speed has room for improvement."

"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

"It's a perpetual license."

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."

"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."

"The solution was expensive for us."

"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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

"Costly."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

817,354 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

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 cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and ...

What do you like most about Parasoft Development Testing Platform?

The most valuable feature is code coverage.

What needs improvement with Parasoft Development Testing Platform?

The solution's speed has room for improvement.

What is your primary use case for Parasoft Development Testing Platform?

We use the Parasoft Development Testing Platform to verify code coverage for static analysis in our unit tests.

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparisons

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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Download Parasoft Development Testing Platform product report

Parasoft Development Testing Platform report

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Parasoft Concerto, Parasoft DTP

Learn More

OpenText

Parasoft

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.

Parasoft DTP aggregates the results from across testing practices, providing intelligent and continuous monitoring of the testing outcomes for greater visibility into what is working — and what isn’t. Includes:

- Comprehensive Reports & Dashboards

- Preconfigured compliance reporting

- Customized Advanced Analytics

- Interactive Navigation of Results

- Traceability

Sample Customers

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

General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, AAI Textron, Boeing, Fidelity, Johnson & Johnson, CIBC, Penske, Thales, Dell,

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform