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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs QMetry Test Management 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th)
QMetry Test Management
Ranking in Test Management Tools
16th
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.6%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QMetry Test Management is 2.2%, up from 1.5% 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.
VinayKumar17 - PeerSpot reviewer
Helped with agile testing, provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities but visibility of test cases could be improved
QMetry has different aspects. It provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities while running tests. It has a recorder integrated. If you run a test on an application, it will record every aspect of it. For example, if you execute a user scenario, it will record what the user does within the application and generate a script. This can also be used for quick automation. Moreover, if we have an automation framework, QMetry can integrate with it. QMetry can also handle load testing in web-based applications. We have integrated it with a bug-tracking system, but not for automation. It was not difficult to integrate it. This integration was mainly for reporting purposes, such as creating reports directly from QMetry.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"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."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"The best benefit was for new hires. We used to write our test cases in simple English within QMetry, so anyone who knew English could understand them. This helped with training new hires."
 

Cons

"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"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."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"For me, the visibility could be improved. When executing a test case, you needed to open it separately to read the steps."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"This is an expensive solution."
"It's a perpetual license."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."
"QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools 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%
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 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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for QMetry Test Management?
QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users. It was around $10d per user, while QMetry was closer to $4 per user. So it's about half the price.
What needs improvement with QMetry Test Management?
QMetry team upgrade features based on the number of users experiencing certain problems. If fewer users encounter an issue, they may not address it. They have a different concept where feature deve...
What is your primary use case for QMetry Test Management?
We use it for test case management. We used it to define valid and invalid inputs and to create tests for both scenarios. This involved manual testing, such as boundary value analysis and exceeding...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Healthland, Stanford University, Solid Fire, Proteus, Epocrates, Cognifide, Exo, Holmes Corporation, Global Communication, University of Sydney
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2025.
832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.