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 SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 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
OpenText ALM enhances oversight, testing efficiency, and collaboration, offering cost savings and reduced defects, despite standardization challenges.
Sentiment score
6.7
Planview AgilePlace eases administrative burdens, supports remote work, and satisfies board demands despite some users' focus on anecdotal benefits.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM customer service varies from fair to excellent, but response times and expertise often need improvement.
Sentiment score
8.0
Planview AgilePlace's support is praised for responsiveness and effective assistance, though feature enhancement timelines can be frustrating.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center excels in scalability and flexibility, despite some licensing and performance challenges, meeting diverse organizational needs.
Sentiment score
7.3
Planview AgilePlace supports large-scale operations, effective integrations, and agile methodologies, ensuring stable performance and benefiting diverse global teams.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is generally stable and dependable, though it faces occasional performance and crash issues under heavy use.
Sentiment score
7.7
Planview AgilePlace and LeanKit are praised for stability, with minimal downtime and quick resolution of issues.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText ALM/Quality Center struggles with high costs, outdated features, poor integration, inadequate reporting, and limited modern methodology support.
Planview AgilePlace users seek improved integrations, scrum, reporting, project management features, and pricing adjustments for better functionality and flexibility.
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.
HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText ALM/Quality Center pricing is high, justified for large enterprises, but users seek more competitive pricing versus open-source rivals.
Enterprise users find Planview AgilePlace pricing worthwhile, appreciating FLEX licensing for application consolidation and favorable agreements.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust traceability, customization, tool integration, test management, automation support, and comprehensive reporting for effective project tracking.
Planview AgilePlace boosts productivity with customizable Kanban boards, easy work tracking, and seamless integration for enhanced project management.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
Planview AgilePlace
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
17th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Planview AgilePlace is 1.8%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

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.
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.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
65%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Insurance Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
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 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
Planview LeanKit, LeanKit
 

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: January 2025.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.