No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis LiveCompare comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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 Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)
Tricentis LiveCompare
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
26th
Average Rating
0.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
SAP Service Providers (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis LiveCompare is 0.9%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management5.5%
Tricentis LiveCompare0.9%
Other93.6%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.
it_user713811 - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Accurately identifies what will be affected in production after a change or upgrade
The LiveCompare apps that my customers and I have benefitted from the most are analyses and reports on the following: * Upgrades – LiveCompare's Impact Analysis functionality accurately identifies what will be affected in production as the result of a change or an upgrade. It can also pinpoint accurately the scope of testing needed in anticipation of an upgrade. * Migration to SAP Hana – LiveCompare's unique reporting and advanced analytics streamline the entire migration process to SAP Hana, while minimizing costs, risk, and time. * SAP License management optimization. * Custom code analytics – Includes usage monitoring, quality and performance monitoring, Java analysis, and ABAP code quality. * Testing - LiveCompare optimizes the entire testing phase in upgrade projects.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I am the QA Manager, so we use it to score all our test cases, results, defects, and reporting, which is very important."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"Valuable for us is having all the data in one place."
"By using the REST API, I have automated QA Reporting, and integrated QA information into the development build process."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"Using LiveCompare allows us to automate many of the required tasks while gaining access to data needed to optimize our SAP environments with fewer resources than before."
"Using LiveCompare allows us to automate many of the required tasks while gaining access to data needed to optimize our SAP environments with fewer resources than before."
"LiveCompare's Impact Analysis functionality identifies accurately what will be affected in production as the result of a change or an upgrade. It can also pinpoint accurately the scope of testing needed in anticipation of an upgrade."
"LiveCompare's unique reporting and advanced analytics streamline the entire migration process to SAP Hana, while minimizing costs, risk, and time."
 

Cons

"Also, on and off, we have had some issues with the operation itself where the operation is not able to run the test or something. We have to go back and forth with the vendor and HPE (now Micro Focus) to get this resolved."
"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."
"The main barriers of entry are cost and implementation, especially if an enterprise implementation is the best solution"
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"One of the bigger issues is the licensing approach. They have concurrent usage and it's very expensive."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"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."
"From my experience with the product, I would suggest adding a feature that would allow a customer who is reviewing the LiveCompare results to be able to connect remotely with one of IntelliCorp's experts (aside from their support) in order to assist the customer to better understand the results."
"From my experience with the product, I would suggest adding a feature that would allow a customer who is reviewing the LiveCompare results to be able to connect remotely with one of IntelliCorp's experts (aside from their support) in order to assist the customer to better understand the results."
"From my experience with the product, I would suggest adding a feature that would allow a customer who is reviewing the LiveCompare results to be able to connect remotely with one of IntelliCorp's experts (aside from their support) in order to assist the customer to better understand the results."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"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."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"IntelliCorp is flexible in terms of licensing and the pricing structure. They are open to discussing a customer's specific requirements."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Performing Arts
8%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
12%
Transportation Company
10%
Healthcare Company
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise160
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlen...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Coca-Cola, eBay, BP, British American Tobacco, Surrey Country Council, AES, P66, MUD, Bentley Motors, Coats, Hershey, Kimberly Clark
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: March 2026.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.