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

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs TestRail comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 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 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 (4th)
TestRail
Ranking in Test Management Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
21
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 TestRail is 13.2%, up from 13.2% 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.
StuartBarker - PeerSpot reviewer
A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities
I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira where the status of tests is not displayed (in Jira) due to I suspect security settings on the browser. In a large corporate environment, it is not easily changed. The support wasn't particularly helpful. It would be great if I could create custom reports, ideally with a tool designed specifically for that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"The most valuable features are the reporting in the dashboard and the general way in which we can create test runs is helpful."
"I was on the lookout for automation testing on the browser and I believe this tool is very interesting in that matter. The solution is useful for UI testing. You just need to add the URL that is to be checked."
"The ability to time test runs gives the tester the ability to compare calculated times to actual times it takes for a test case to run."
"The most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"I use the solution for test management."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"You don't need to follow complex procedures to create a test run, test case, etc."
 

Cons

"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"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."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"Recently, I faced some issues while using the product on Mac-based machines, as I was unable to upload test cases."
"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."
"Better prediction of text."
"The test suite management has room for improvement as well as better reporting."
"Reporting could be more flexible regarding repeating reports."
"The TestRail API to integrate reporting of automated tests is complete, but requires many requests to identify the appropriate entry."
"The platform needs improvement regarding performance and creating links."
"I've encountered at some point, some difficulties on the administration side, but I don't remember exactly what they were."
"TestRail's user interface is not great. When you use it for the first time, you will be very uncomfortable and not know how to create test cases. It doesn't have a field for preconditions and post-conditions."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."
"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."
"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"The price of the solution is based on how many users you have per year. When you grow, it is segmented, For example, 10 to 25, you have a price, and more than 50, or 100, you need to take the enterprise license. I don't think we will reach this point."
"Use TestRail Cloud (online TR hosted server) and don't worry about maintenance or scalability. It saves a lot of cash and time."
"Negotiate the best deal you can."
"The product is not much expensive."
"Pricing for small teams seems correct with respect to competitors."
"The solution is quite reasonably priced for what it offers and offers a monthly subscription model."
"Its price is definitely not more. If they introduce automation, they can charge more."
"My advice to others is to shop around for the best deal. Some options out there are free in cyberspace."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
66%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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 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...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
TestRail by Gurock
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Apple, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, NASA, Amazon, HP, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TestRail and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.