OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

We use OpenText ALM Quality Center for defect tracking and test management. We test the software which we get from our suppliers and do the tests and test management.

In the beginning, OpenText ALM significantly impacted our project by reducing the time needed to handle defects to ten percent of the time it took before.

After that the reporting helped very much getting approvals from departments and auditors.

It was really good, customizable, and easy to use. Then we extended it to test plan, test lab, test executions, and test cases. We now also use the requirement module, which is also very enhanced, offering comprehensive coverage and various linking options between items. The reporting module is also great, allowing the creation of templates and presenting data in Word, PDF, or HTML formats.

The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer. The synchronizer tool to sync with Jira is not maintained, and it doesn't support the required encryption levels for passwords, which creates issues. Additionally, administrating users is not user-friendly. Moreover licenses are expensive so that a free read-only access would be appreciated to make information directly available to other users.

I have worked with this solution for nearly 20 years.

I have nearly no problems with it. The stability is rated nine to ten.

On a scale of one to ten, the scalability of the solution is eight to nine.

In the last few years, after multiple vendor changes, the quality of customer support has deteriorated. Initially, with Mercury or HP, the support was okay, but with Micro Focus and OpenText, I do not get any competent contact who can help me. I would rate it a two.

Negative

OpenText ALM Quality Center was the first solution we used for defect tracking and test management since the year 2000.

The initial setup is really easy. It's a guided installation procedure. Upgrades are also straightforward if you have some knowledge of databases.

The pricing is quite high. We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high. X-ray for Jira is cheaper at around $10,000 a year for five hundred users, although additional add-ons make it more expensive.

I would not recommend OpenText ALM Quality Center at the moment. I would wait until they enhance the browser-based product tree (ALM Octane) more to a  solution for full functionality. If OpenText develops this product further, it could be recommended due to its comprehensive test management capabilities.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use ALM to record our testing results. Our company uses SAP, and during implementation, we perform implementation testing and utilize ALM to record the results.

It is a good tool for managing testing. We can easily download the data and manage profiles.

It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily.

There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements. For example, only the first user can click 'run' during testing, and subsequent users have to click 'continue manual run', which can create reporting errors. Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.

We have been using it since 2022. However, we do not use it frequently and only use it when we need to conduct testing.

It is stable. I would rate stability as eight out of ten.

It is quite scalable. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I have not contacted customer support yet.

Positive

I am not the person who set it up, so I am not aware of the setup process.

I manage the costs, so I don't know if it has saved money. However, the cost seems okay for my company.

We did not evaluate other ALM solutions.

It is a good tool for managing tests.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for test management. The tool is basically used for the testing process.

The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard.

The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network.

There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.

I have been using OpenText ALM / Quality Center for more than ten years.

I rate the technical support a five out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with IBM EAM.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

During the product's installation phase, I will not count on the configuration part because it is based on the user requirements. Helping with the setup of the tool for a group of people in an organization can take around two or three days, including the setup and installation.

It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model.

Speaking if the tool has improved our company's life cycle management, I would say that even OpenText wants to change to an application lifecycle. The tool can be helpful for delivery and for sale.

In terms of the quality assurance features in the tool, users can see what their requirements are, and it mostly starts off with the testing phase and for high-end developments as well, and it has a requirements model. The tool is a requirements management application. The tool can be used to produce very complex health care tools.

The tool can support and execute scripts based on commands. People can do everything that is simple to be able to meet their requirements with the help of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. At the end stage, the tool can be used to judge the quality of a project.

The reporting module is included with Excel, Word, and some Microsoft reporting tools.

It is possible to integrate the tool with Excel and some other solutions.

Feature-wise, OpenText ALM / Quality Center is the best.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center is a specific tool that was not from OpenText in the beginning, and I feel it was from Mercury, but it has proven to be a professional tool in terms of visibility, quality, and other such areas. I know that TCM is associated with Sentinel.

Right now, I wouldn't recommend the tool because of its price. The tool can be recommended to those who are willing to pay the money for it.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We were using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for our test management for lots of products. I installed ALM myself, and we were using it for SAP deployment. We were using Requirement modules, Test Plan modules, Test Lab modules as well as the Defect modules in ALM. Not only for this product, but also for other companies like Cooper, Active, Delphi, Allegis and DLM for test management.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM. All these features are good.

In terms of places for improvement, Micro Focus is an expensive tool. We see nowadays that there are other products coming, and Micro Focus is more expensive and there are lots of license costs. Lots of companies are not taking it because of the cost.

It would be a good idea if they could deal with some user features and take a look at the cost. Because there is a lot of maintenance. People buy licenses and then every year they need to pay around 18% support charge, et cetera. It depends on the companies. Some rich companies buy it. Mid-level and smaller companies may have difficulties with this one.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very recent name. It really started back in 2000, almost 20 years before. This product belonged to Mercury Interactive. After that HP bought it. From HP, Micro Focus bought it. I have been working on this product for the last 20 years. Initially they called it TestDirector. After that it become Quality Center. Now it's ALM.

As far as performance is concerned, it is a very, very, very robust tool. It works. The only thing is the number of licenses. Because you buy licenses of 50, only 50 can concurrently use it. There could be 400 named users. 

It requires low maintenance, and the user creation is simple. If you want to quickly add any users, or if you want to quickly create a project, it is straightforward and easy.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is scalable in terms the database size and the repository. It has storage in two places; service level and at Windows level, the File System level. Lots of documents get stored in the Windows level, the File System level. So as long as you have good enough space, 100 GB or 150 GB is good enough. Only two limitation. One is licenses. The second is the server. So we usually recommend around 100 GB, 50 GB to 100 GB, which is enough.

We usually have 200 users using it. Usually, people buy a 50-user license but that could be used by 300 people, 300 users, because not everybody will be logging on at the same time. So scalability depends upon the license.

In terms of maintaining and deploying the updates, it does not take more than one person, probably not even that. I would say 1/4 person for this role. That person is a system admin. I used to do that, too. I was doing upgrades and configuring all myself. At the same time I was managing the actual deployment of the test phase.

This takes about one day a month.

Tech support handled most of the issues handled well, but not where there is a problem. Whenever we buy a product from Micro Focus we usually buy from Micro Focus directly. Or there are second sellers and we can buy from them, and they give you support. Whenever we have a problem, Micro Focus is very good at support. We log a ticket and they support it.

Initial setup is very easy. Usually there are two ways of doing it. We needed two servers; an app server and a database server. Usually Micro Focus, like other companies, installs it on their cloud or you can install it yourselves. It's not very difficult. I was doing that too.

When we have the ALM we can install it very quickly. It does not take much time, maybe three or four days. Once the system is ready we can pretty much install ALM and apply the license, which then deploys to users. Configuring is very easy. I was creating users and different groups, putting in lots of configuration.

Usually, whenever I work with the clients, I recommend ALM for the separate deployments and separate implementations because it's easy to use and good with those things. However, because of the cost there are some clients that cannot afford the high price, or can afford it but they don't want to pay that much.

As SAP Solution Managers, we try to use it. But people also use Jira. Jira has a very high level test management tool. So people who can't afford the price go with Jira.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a good solution. On a scale of one to ten, I would give it a nine.

We use the solution mainly for test cases, SAP projects, and login defects.

The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab.

The solution's reporting could be improved. I noticed that the solution does not have a good approach to exploratory testing. Exploratory testing, which has a good screen capture and allows people to pursue their testing before designing the test cases, seems to be more in demand. The solution has evolved over the years but needs to catch up with some of the user community's expectations.

I have been using OpenText ALM / Quality Center for 16 years.

I rate the solution’s stability nine and a half out of ten.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I've used almost all the testing products, including Jira and IBM.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We have seen a return on investment with the solution. The tool has saved at least 30% to 40% of our time. The solution we used before OpenText ALM was very time-consuming, and it wasn't well structured. The traceability of OpenText ALM is very solid, and we have seen some significant gains in terms of our traceability.

The solution's pricing makes it more challenging for companies to buy it. Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM. Jira is free for the first ten users, which makes it more attractive for smaller businesses.

As a professional tester, the solution's best features are traceability, test coverage, identifying requirements, and mapping the appropriate test cases against the requirements to ensure coverage. The solution provides bidirectional traceability for requirements to test the defects. It is a solid way of tracking and managing the overall testing activities there.

The solution is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would advise users to take the time to understand the tool and work it through. It may seem a little complex at first, but the complexity is a result of the tool's capabilities and sophistication. Once you understand the tool quite well, it meets most, if not all, of your requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We used Quality Center for test case management. We wrote and uploaded test cases into it, and we also executed them manually. We could track the results of the test cases, and we could also track the defects that were found.

We also used it for higher-end requirements management and traceability. The managers and other stakeholders could track the requirements and see how they were being tested.

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.

Moreover, the solution has additional features, like integration with multiple tools. For example, they have integrated with IBM Rational Integration Tester, which is a tool for API testing and web service testing. They have also integrated with Selenium.

There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution. 

I have experience using this solution. 

I would rate stability an eight out of ten. The solution does crash at times. 

oI would rate the scalability a six out of ten. There is room for improvement here. 

The initial setup is quite easy. 

The deployment doesn't take much time. It is very fast.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It is a pretty good tool. 

It's not a simple tool, but it does have a lot of features and considerations. It really depends on the level of the user. For example, some users will be working on the test execution, while senior levels will be tracking the requirement analysis. I work with both levels to track progress. So, it's a tool that can be used by people at all levels of experience.

Our primary use case for OpenText ALM is for automation use cases. We can map all the test cases with the requirements. The automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.

OpenText ALM helps my organization by allowing us to capture requirements and map them to the test cases, including automation test cases. 

It also allows us to schedule test runs and manage everything through ALM. It provides a good return on investment since the business can clearly see what is automated and what is not, as well as check the defects raised in ALM.

The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM. 

Features like BPT and the way they make it easier for end users to understand the split of test cases according to functionality are also valuable.

Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and the solution is quite effective.

I have been using OpenText ALM as a customer for three years, and we are going to complete three years this December.

I rate the stability of the solution at a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very stable.

The solution is easy to scale.

I would rate tech support nine out of ten, indicating very good support.

Positive

The initial setup is easy since it is a SaaS-based solution.

There is a good return on investment. We can map all the test cases with the requirements, and the automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.

The cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to test the software from the company. Additionally, we do manual and automated tests.

The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult.

In a future release, the AI which is implemented in the new version could be marketed better with more details of its capabilities.

I have been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for approximately 15 years.

The stability of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is good.

We have a few hundred people using the solution from project to project.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a scalable solution.

I have contacted the support a few times over the years of using the solution. The support could improve by having more training. I had a difficult time working with their team. The problem the support had was they were not familiar with the things I implemented and the connectors used.

We were using Tricentis and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to compare which one was better. However, we deployed Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a lot more and at this point, it would be difficult to migrate to a new solution. This is one of the main reasons why we use this solution. However, as a company, we wanted to use the best solution and at this time there is still a debate.

The initial setup of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center depends if you have prior knowledge or how much technical experience the installer has. It is simple if you have some experience. The process is not meant for a non-technical person, such as setting up the infrastructure to build the servers.

The solution is priced high but it is worth the money. We received a return on investment.

The solution is priced high.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is one of the best tools on the market.

I strongly recommend using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to capitalize on the work that is done within the tool for future activities, such as regression testing and training. Unlike working with Excel or Word documents, the work you do in this tool remains accessible and secure, with the option for backups. It's no surprise that many business professionals are using this tool, as it provides a reliable and efficient platform to work on. With a small amount of training and induction in key areas like the test lab and defects module, anyone can work effectively within this tool.

I rate Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a nine out of ten.