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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Planview AgilePlace comparison

 

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:
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
OpenText ALM/Quality Center supports large user bases and diverse projects efficiently, despite occasional license and performance issues.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.0
OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for efficient project oversight, test management, and defect tracking.
No sentiment score available
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.8
OpenText ALM faces high costs, outdated UI, limited compatibility, cumbersome reporting, and integration issues, needing broader platform flexibility.
No sentiment score available
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.9
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is stable with occasional issues; patching and updates enhance performance and minimize downtime.
No sentiment score available
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.8
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's support is inconsistent, with varied user experiences, prompting reliance on internal, third-party, or premier support.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high costs make it challenging for smaller companies, promoting a shift to cheaper or open-source options.
No sentiment score available
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
204
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
Planview AgilePlace
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
17th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 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 Planview AgilePlace is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
NS
Gives us visibility into projects and enables users to leave comments on different projects
We use the submit feedback button pretty often. I encourage the teams to use that if they see anything that could be improved. But we've been really happy with how fast LeanKit improves. The biggest improvement would be the API and data connections and making the data more accessible or quicker to access. One of our team members has brought up actual-time tracking on a card as a potential improvement. They had an interest in knowing how long a specific card had been worked on by a specific user or somebody that was assigned to that card. But there's not really a way for them to start and stop a time that they were actually working on it, except for if we created a different lane and they dragged it into the lane and then stopped using it in the lane. They requested that there'd be some sort of timer function on each one of the tasks.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
62%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Insurance Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

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.
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 ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Planview LeanKit, LeanKit
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
REA Group, Thompson Reuters
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Planview AgilePlace and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.