OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

Definitely support of the agile methodology is the most valuable feature. We have received a lot of feedback from our agile teams that the ALM.NET is not supporting their work and it was really great to see that ALM Octane is fulfilling those needs. But our development and testing teams are looking for the new agile and DevOps deliveries.

We see a double benefit because part of our business is still very legacy-type. We are running the mainframes, and so on, the old kind of solutions, where we pretty much see that, at least for the next year to two to maybe even three years, we will continue using the ALM.NET, as such, maybe even for the functional testing and the UFT, as such. But another team is quickly adopting the agile methodology and there we have hardly seen any validity at all on the Octane for over a year now. We started to implement it the first real project in NND Center, and see good results from that.

The new solutions that are soon coming for ALM Octane, such as predictivity and requirements management, are very welcome. Those have been missing from the existing solution. So far, we have been able to manage with the other alternative solution and integrations, but I am also really looking forward to that.

So far, we are very happy with stability, even though knowing that there is quite a lot of new development, especially for the ALM Octane. But so far, so good. I have nothing bad to say.

We are at a very early stage in implementing this solution. But at the moment it looks promising. Although, it is difficult to say how far it goes. But at least, so far, we have started.

So far, technical support is very good because we have been using HPE products, or the earlier Mercury products, for a long time. We have a quite good collaboration with them. From that kind of background and knowing our kind of working environment and solutions, together with their technical support and help, we have been able to implement these tools in the right way the first time, without trying to invent the wheel on our side.

Setup was pretty straightforward. Obviously, we kind of had a bit of discussion internally, because we didn't take a traditional migration from the earlier product. We really started from scratch. That is still somewhat an issue for some of the deliveries, that they don’t want to use the agile method. But we have highly recommended this because they are two different worlds and that it would be better to plan it carefully and not just carry on all the crap from history.

Our development teams are using a lot of open source solutions and other tools, such as JIRA. But, for our business needs and the business purposes, we have seen that HPE solutions are still valid for our business. We need to have backwards traceability. We have to have the capability to show what has been done, what's been going on, and what. In some of the cases, there has been the discussions that, "Yes. We have all this information, but you have to go to the Jenkins, or this and that logs, and it's there." But that's not what the business wants to see. They want to have a high-level visibility on their business. That is why we are still keeping the HPE products, and probably also in the future we'll have them.

We use it for manual and automatic testing along with defect and requirements management. We can check everything, know who is the sponsor for it, and make a test plan. Everything is very visible. 

ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach. We have also installed ALM Octane and are trying to see if it fills the approach that we are looking for our company.

One to three years.

It is very stable. We have not had any problems. 

I have a good impression of the scalability. I have been very satisfied. 

I used tech support once. It took a while to solve the issue, but it was solved.

Before, we used Excel for complex testings. Using this solution has been a huge step for us. From reporting to team management, everything is better now. 

We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us. 

I am the QA Manager, so we use it to score all our test cases, results, defects, and reporting, which is very important. We're able to produce a number of reports and graphs. This helps us a lot when working with our clients.

We're doing a lot of agile work and using a number of different agile tools. Agile integration, as right now it does integrate with version 1.0, but I'm not sure about its integration with some of the other agile tools.

We've been using it for about five years.

It is stable. We've really had no downtime experiences. We've had good experiences with it.

It is scalable. We're actually moving onto the SaaS product. We're looking at that right now.

Tech support has been very helpful when we've had some questions or issues. They've been very responsive.

I'll find out over the next couple of months as we are looking to do the first upgrade since I have been using it.

It's a very good tool. We use it throughout the company. There are just some integration points which could be a little better. But if they're out there, I don't know about them. Maybe having the knowledge and knowing about them would help as well.

• Requirements Management
• Test Management
• Test Execution
• Defect Management
• Business Model
• Traceability
• Test configuration
• Test Parameters
• Integration with HPE UFT and HPE LoadRunner

All the options are designed so if you are using this tool for Test Management, then you must have them all enabled for efficient use.

It has basic and advanced facilities that allow you to arrange all of your test data in very well arranged, systematic manner.

Graphs can be further improved to manage more requirements at a time.

We have you used this solution for seven years.

We never encountered any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. It depends on the number of licenses. If you have them all active at the time, it still responds the same way, which is fast.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We used Excel, but it was so difficult to manage the various Excel files and sheets just like maintaining a register book for your records. ALM allows you to handle them all with just one click.

The initial setup was straightforward as it it required little knowledge of the server to do a simple server-side installation.

If we have huge data and more number of users managing the data, then ALM is the best option for our organization. It also applies if your team is distributed, out-sourced or in-sourced.

We did not evaluate other options. I was aware of their earlier version which had a very good market and feedback, I didn't have to waste my time doing a PoC on any other product.

You must look to implement the minimum system requirements, Configuration, for the server for optimum and efficient use.

• Test Management
• Tracking
• Integration with SAP Solution Manager

The processes of both test execution and test tracking have become more transparent.

We use it for big SAP implementations, which provides ROI after the first project.

More flexible reporting would be good.

I've used it for one-and-a-half years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

The support is good, however their response time could be improved.

No solution was previously in place.

It was straightforward.

A vendor was used for support during the implementation, but we had internal knowledge as well.

The implementation ROI highly depends on the size of the project the tool will be used for in the future. For big SAP implementations, ROI will be gained after the first project.

SAP Solution Manager TAO was considered as we are using that tool for Application Lifecycle Management.

But due to the integration possibilities with HP ALM and SAP Solution Manager, HP ALM was the choice we made.

The most useful are the requirements repository, the ability to link requirements to test script steps, and the use of traceability matrix reporting.

Houses requirements and testing with approvals all in one place. Signature approval capability was very useful.

It could be better by incorporating more spell checking and word processing functionalities in steps. Also, it could be more user friendly to "call" other scripts.

I have used the latest version of ALM for about four years, but I have used all previous versions going back to 2001 through to today.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Mostly with the blocking of users when the license limit was reached.

Customer Service:

It's 5/10 as our own resources were more useful at solving issues.

Technical Support:

It's 5/10 - our own resources were more useful at solving issues due to time constraints with responses.

We did not have a previous solution. This was our first solution.

Make sure it is easy to use for your roles. If you have technical people, other solutions may be better (like resources with VB expertise, etc.). Make sure you implement it as organized by system functionality, not by project.

My current company is just starting to use it, and they keep copying test plans for each project instead of reusing original test plans, which is a waste of time and resources.

Traceability of bugs to script execution (Test Lab) to Script (Test Plan) to Requirements, Easy to use. Web based, so it is easily accessible at multiple sites worldwide.

Expensive Maintenance & Support (M&S), Annual fee.

Valuable for us is having all the data in one place. Having the support for a process of testing. That professionalizes testing, more or less. You need input, you need a little bit of training as you could use vicarious approaches when you use ALM.

They can improve, of course on the deployment side, now whether that will be ALM or Octane I don't know. ALM-Octane with its lower footprint is of course easier to roll out and with the old Java client. I don't know if I could take to a roll out point of view. HP is probably stuck with a bit of a beast. We haven't got many areas where we think it can improve now, if we use it in combination with other tools.

A particular problem area for us is really to improve support for requirements. We come from an environment where everything had procedures for requirements from a business analyst point of view. Having to switch to ALM is a bit of a disappointment. You lose lots of functionality, for example VOV in comparison, baseline reporting. So far being able actually to write the requirements from a granular way. There are system constraints, very old times in ALM which make it an outdated tool for requirements to be frank.

We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

ALM is very stable. I'd still rather you didn't talk about facts, but it's stable. We never had a crash, for example. If that's what you mean.

It is highly scalable.

The technical support is pretty good. It probably depends on the support contract type you have. Our contract works pretty well as we have dedicated support engineers for our product.

They are knowledgeable and responsive. Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters. So we never had a problem to get issues fixed when we found that particular person. It was very effective I guess.

The setup of ALM is, well, mixed. You know the old Java clients give some headaches. That's for ALM.

When considering vendors we look for stability, support and reliability. And that's probably it. So we probably are not going for small vendors.