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 March 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 13.7%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestRail is 13.0%, down from 13.5% 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.
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

"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"It has a good response time."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"I haven't faced any stability issues using the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"You don't need to follow complex procedures to create a test run, test case, etc."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"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."
 

Cons

"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval."
"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"I've encountered at some point, some difficulties on the administration side, but I don't remember exactly what they were."
"Their customer support could be improved. Sometimes we struggle with that. It could be faster. Whenever we raise any query, they get back to you but the turnaround time is very slow."
"The reports should be more user-friendly."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
"Better prediction of text."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"TestRail by Gurock could improve by adding a defect management module tool. It would add a lot of value if I want to install it and I don't have Jira or an isolating team. For example, if I am providing a service it's separated from the development team, it then would be better to have defect management included with the test management. However, as it is now I need to be integrated with Jira or another defect management tool to complete the testing process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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)."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."
"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."
"The solution is priceed high."
"My advice to others is to shop around for the best deal. Some options out there are free in cyberspace."
"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."
"The product has a reasonable price in terms of the features."
"Negotiate the best deal you can."
"The product is not much expensive."
"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."
"I give the price a five out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance 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: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.