OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Traceability
• Ability to reuse test cases
• Reports

We now know more about how to test.

Import Library - Synchronization problems are often because the ALM interconnection with HP Solution Manager is too fragile.

I've been using it for six years.

We had a problem with the consultant.

Not really. Our big problem is that our in-house support of Solution Manager is not compatible. It's not a fault with the product.

For migration from v10 to v11, we needed to convert manually each project because the HP consultant, and our project chief, couldn't use ROBOT in Apache.

6/10.

5/10.

MS Excel was our first solution.

We paid for an HP consultant who wasn't experienced. They called everyday about everything to the central development team of HP.

It's not so good because some users don't see its real potential because they are afraid they will lose their job.

Keep it simple for an easy beginning, and don't waste time with incompetent people.

• Reporting
• Dashboard
• Traceability
• Application Lifecycle Management

The tool has increased the collaboration between different teams.

Some improvement to the Requirements Management are needed.

I've used it for five years along with HP Quality Center Enterprise Edition v10.

No issues encountered.

No, it's a very stable product.

No issues encountered.

8//10.

7/10.

We switched because the previous solution was lacking features to manage a complete life-cycle.

Very simple setup.

We used a vendor who were 10/10.

11 months.

Varies.

For us this was the complete choice.

Use iy out of the box and utilize built in features.

You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between having everything in one tool and be able to validate everything up and down in the SDLC.

Over the years, we've used this tool extensively in quality assurance, so they can record the test cases. They do whatever they need to do to execute the test cases, then report on what they've done, and how many defects have appeared. If they've gone out of production, then they've actually been able to shorten the time for QA, shorten the time for development, and lessened the amount of defects that actually get out to production.

The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac. There's not any solution to any platform or browser. That's been a problem and people have been going to other tools because of it.

I've been using this product for about 18 years.

To a certain extent. We've had some projects that have gotten very large, to the point where one of them has become unsustainable, and we had to split it up to upgrade it to the next version.

The install itself, a lot of the DLLs and a lot of the times we get some updates, like Microsoft updates, cause issues with the tool itself. I think it can be improved, but if it's going to be a Windows program, something different than .net or something that's going to be more futuristic or really more inline with the technology of today.

We have a SaaS solution right now. At one point, we were on-premise. When we were on-premise, we had premier support, which was phenomenal because we got immediate attention. The support that's not premier support, it is not so good.

People don't take advantage of a lot of the functionality that the tool has. I think overall it's a very good tool for what it does.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: They know me, and I know them, so having a very good relationship and a very good rapport is very important. If I need help, I can go to certain people, and I can get help.

The test generation ability, coverage reporting, and risk prioritization. From a test and defect management perspective, there are few that can compare for delivery in a traditional/waterfall project).

For our clients it provides a centralized means of accessing data, monitoring progress, and creating a singular view on the test status within the business. A number have used it to perform comparative analysis to determine the resultant cost saving and benefits achieved as a result of using the application, and determining process improvement.

The product could do with more native integration for agile projects, a greatly reduced cost model and closer integration with products that are non-HP.

On and off for various customers for 10 years (i.e. going back to when it was Mercury Quality Center).

Not normally.

No. This is an enterprise application and scales accordingly.

Seven out of 10.

We use multiple solutions depending on the needs of our client at the time.

Straightforward.

HPE is constantly updating its licensing to be competitive, but as a whole the pricing for ALM is very high for the local market and, as such, we see a larger adoption overseas.

Yes.

Perform the recommended due diligence when adopting any new tool and ensure that the tool adoption correctly addresses the problem being experienced. This is a good tool and if correctly implemented will provide a solution to a number of delivery focused issues within a business.

What I love about it is that it can be used for the entire lifecycle (from requirements to release) and the dashboard is great for reporting.

The organization I am currently with does not use ALM. I recently moved. At AMC, we began using it during my tenure. When I got there, it was shelfware and they were using spreadsheets. ALM improved our ability to share reports which were understandable to all levels of business. Also having all the bugs for all the projects in one place instead of in a spreadsheet allowed more visibility of issues to all teams. Having test cases in ALM also helped us with spending less time doing rework. Being able to reuse the tests instead of creating new tests saved time.

The product could be more user-friendly. It's pretty easy when you know what to do, but it's not intuitive learning that all the features are available. For example, it’s not obvious that you can update a set of test cases with multi-select cut/paste. This was not available in its previous versions.
A lot of people also think all you get is what you see out-of-the-box. A lot of inexperienced users don’t know almost everything is configurable.

16 years.

No.

No.

I rarely needed any as I am an expert administrator.

Yes, spreadsheets. We switched because we grew from three people to 10 and needed a tool. ALM was one most of the team had used at other companies.

Complex. There are many steps to follow to set everything up for an upgrade, and if you make a mistake, it's catastrophic.

It is definitely overpriced. Most of the cost is for support that you rarely need if you have an onsite admin.

No.

It's better suited as an enterprise tool that can support the licensing cost, instead of for a small shop.

Playback, test tracking, and defect management are the most valuable features.

Playback made it easy to create automated functional tests that could be reused.

Test tracking eliminated the need to track test executions on a separate application, such as Excel.

It provides ease of use, the reporting status and tracking of defects.

I no longer use the product as its price does not fit into my QA budget.

Its pricing does need to improve. As I recall, when I was working at my previous company, we paid over $100,000 a year plus maintenance. At that time, I could have purchased a RadView selection for that much and reduced the annual maintenance to around $15,000.

I have used this solution for about 10 years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Earlier, we used a home-grown, Lotus Notes-based system. Later on, I moved to a position where HPE QC was already being used.

The setup isn't too easy nor too difficult; I'd put it somewhere in the middle.

This is an excellent tool for larger companies. It has been my experience that it is not cost-effective in medium or small-scaled companies.

While at my previous employer, I evaluated other options and recommended moving to a more cost-effective tool. At that time, I recommended RadView.

Make sure it fits into your cost structure and consider the annual maintenance cost in your evaluation.

It's robust and leading edge. They are always ahead of the pack. They spend a lot on research and development and that’s the reason they make good products.

The testing tools and everything that comes with it is very beneficial; especially the REST API environment that is best-of-breed.

I am not an end user so I can't really say. But, I would like to see improvement in the price.

The solution is very stable.

You can use it any way, so I suppose it is very scalable.

I am not personally responsible for technical support, but the other team would have used them.

We have always been using HPE products, so we have just grown with it.

Another team was responsible for the setup.

Specifically for this solution, they need to be in a close relationship to co-develop functionality. They also need to know the vendor is there. That is the biggest plus from an HPE perspective.

The defects section is the most valuable.

It has improved our testing designs and test reporting.

• Ability to export test plans (test cases and libraries) in other formats, such as in Excel.
• Test Lab functionality needs to be changed so you can set test attributes automatically with minimal effort.

I've used it for two years, although not in my current role.

My department doesn't do deployments, but I believe that the team doing it does have problems.

We have a specific department that deals with customer service.

We have a specific department that deals with technical support.