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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs PTC Integrity 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
PTC Integrity
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PTC Integrity is 4.3%, up from 3.2% 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.
Neha Wanjari - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to create tasks, change requests and documentation
I personally like PTC Integrity because it provides everything within the software. You can store and access your data and perform various tasks. Compared to other products, I find it user-friendly, which can sometimes feel complex. I think PTC Integrity is user-friendly, making it nice to use. The tool is easier to learn. The tool has a dashboard that details our projects and products, including the number of tasks, change requests, and their statuses (incomplete or complete). Having all this data within the solution makes collaborating easy for our project team. Unlike using multiple tools, having everything we need in one software platform is convenient. I rate the tool's user experience and interface a nine point five out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"We found the requirement management and the version control features to be the most useful for our client."
"We have been using it because it gives certain abilities in the automotive industry, such as auditing or keeping track of information."
"The most valuable feature is traceability starting from the requirements until the end of a project."
"Complete traceability as per process requirements."
"The tool is quite structured and has a good command set."
"I have found that previously, the OEM sector was managing everything, possibly manually. However, with the introduction of the product, it has become much easier for customers to handle their products. Previously, customers were using different software to manage their products. However, PTC Integrity offers a solution for requirements management, test management, and even development to support live ticket management. So instead of using multiple software tools, we can use it for all these purposes."
"I personally like PTC Integrity because it provides everything within the software. You can store and access your data and perform various tasks. Compared to other products, I find it user-friendly, which can sometimes feel complex. I think PTC Integrity is user-friendly, making it nice to use. The tool is easier to learn."
"PTC Integrity has good stability."
 

Cons

"We would like to have support for agile development."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"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 extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"We are unhappy because everything that we needed required customization and this is not a plug-and-play type of solution at all."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"There are not enough reports. People would like to see something similar to what is available in JIRA."
"The web version does not have all the functionalities of the non-web version. Administration and adding/removing fields, etc. cannot be done on the web version. People want solutions that are compatible with Android. I also want to have a version by which I can bulk edit all the fields."
"It's not so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer."
"For complex businesses, the internal templates could have more flexibility and compatibility."
"To be honest, the third controller system is kind of old. There are lots of transactional changes that have not been implemented in PTC. If you have a larger project, for example, whenever you give bits and need to change 10,000 files you can just commit them. But here the work style is a little more file based, so you'll have to take care of almost all the files individually. It's not a single commit like you do here, but rather you have to allocate time for each component or file that you want to check in or commit. That's a very big issue."
"The tool's web-based UI needs improvement. Some functionalities don't work yet, and querying items is slow. Also, it's not in the cloud yet. I don't know if they'll do it in the future because they already have core agreements with customers. If they offer these functionalities, customers will likely buy their product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to the market, the price is high."
"The solution was expensive for us."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
"The product is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
69%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
Manufacturing Company
27%
Computer Software Company
18%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
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?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
What do you like most about PTC Integrity?
I have found that previously, the OEM sector was managing everything, possibly manually. However, with the introduction of the product, it has become much easier for customers to handle their produ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PTC Integrity?
PTC Integrity is expensive, but it is cheaper compared to IBM Rational. The comparative affordability in pricing is an advantage.
What needs improvement with PTC Integrity?
The user-friendliness of PTC Integrity can be improved. The interface is not intuitive for first-time users and takes time to get accustomed to. A more straightforward and intuitive interface would...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
TRW Automotive
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. PTC Integrity and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.