OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Dashboard
• Reporting
• Version control
• Requirements Management
• Test Lab
• Defect tracking and management

Easier Test Lab management and defect life-cycle tracking, which is useful during triage calls.

Quality Center has definitely added value as it has easy accessibility for all our employees and is very useful for defect triage and scrum meetings.

• Include project planning and tracking
• Include defect sharing
• There are a lot of features in ALM which should be implemented into Quality Center, especially as ALM and Quality Center are integrated.
  

I've used it for six years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10

8/10

We previously used Bugzilla and switched because Quality Center is easier to use, has good reporting, and has better accessibility.

Initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it in-house.

100%

There are many free-ware tools available, which you can try.

• Bugzilla
• JIRA

We are using the solution for multiple purposes: test management, defect tracking, traceability, requirement tracking, and test execution.

We're regulated by the FDA so the number of manual signatures and paper-based signatures was reduced. We have had less waste, have been able to collaborate more, and have saved time.

In future releases I'd like to see better reporting, a more simplified UI, and improved metrics. It would also good if they removed some features to simplify the solution. It only supports internet explorer right now, so it would be good if it could support other browsers. Browser costs are also fairly high.

Pretty stable.

It has been fairly scalable.

HP support is good and they are very responsive. They're not world class, but they're good.

We used Word documents, which was not efficient.

Though we only purchased ALM less than a year ago, we believe ROI is good.

Prospective buyers should know that it doesn’t support all browsers and that browser costs are high.

We planned on using the solution for defect testing but it was a low priority for us, we never got around to it.

So far in the way we use the product, it has slowed down our process.

I have not thought about it. Though, I think the tools might be effective if we could utilize them better.

The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively. There is not a standard way of using the tools and I think that if there was, we would benefit. The tools are also too complex.

If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good to include in the next release. The current one does not seem complete. It is not really user friendly and it is difficult to handle test speeds. Even though the product supports a range of configurations they are difficult to set up and we preferred a different configuration.

I have been using ALM Quality Center for 1 year.

I think the only issue we were getting was with the memory. Our database was getting bigger and bigger so we need to increase the memory for the database to alleviate the issue.

In regard to scalability, I think it is scalable. In our team, we have more than 100, as for the other teams, I am not sure.

The tools might be good but the way we were utilized them was not effective. People have different ways to use the tools and we did not have a standard or conventional way. It would have been more beneficial if everybody followed a set of standards. Making the tools less complex would be better.

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

• Test Plan: Script storage and update.
• Test Lab: Execution planning and results storage.

Because of global test documentation, testing can be resourced most effectively each test cycle (including outsourcing).

Integration with test automation never worked properly. We were never able to run test automation on the SaaS platform. We ended up having to use QC 10 for test automation. We went through several "fixes", upgrades, etc., and were never able to fix the problem.

My guess would be 18 years at least.

Use of test automation with ALM is inherently unstable.

The parts that work seem to scale very well. But our use of test automation appears to have exceeded what this tool can do with that functionality.

Tech support is very, very poor. There is no coordination between product groups, you have to repeat the same information multiple times, features that are "fixed" end up breaking in the next release, and releases and upgrades do not fix problems as promised.

No.

We have installed multiple versions and upgrades over the years and it can be very cumbersome.

It can be expensive to own.

No.

Can be beneficial for large companies, but check out alternatives. Some of them might fit the bill for less money.

Customization is the most valuable feature. I don’t see other products with such a huge and detailed customization feature.

The Web UI and the Administration Page need to improve. These are not issues, but areas to improve.

Web UI: In some version (I don’t remember exactly the version number, unfortunately), Web UI was introduced with limited functionalities but it was cool in my opinion. Web UI has a lot of advantages and the main advantage is that the customer doesn’t have to install a big thick client on his machine. Web UI is faster, lightweight and easy to configure compared to the on-premise installation. But for some reason, this functionality (all Web UI) was removed in the next release.

Administration Page: It doesn’t have any issues. The main idea here is that it was written using old technologies and it would be great to improve/rewrite it using modern technologies. It doesn’t have an impact on the customer, it is more for developers who should support this area.

I have used this solution for five and a half years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is very good.

Previously, I have used Redmine and JIRA. Switching to HPE ALM was not my decision, I changed my job.

The setup was straightforward.

Just want to advise to use ALM SaaS in case you don’t want to use ALM all your life. It is cheaper and provides you with all the ALM features but for some period of time. Also, you don’t need to install it manually, the entire environment is already installed.

As an advise for developers who will develop such applications I would like to say - always try to support the area in an actual state, i.e., by using modern ideas/technologies if possible. Also, listen to the customer's needs, have flexible customization tools and do not forget about performance.

The most valuable feature is the Quality Center itself. It's a test management tool; so it enables us to manage and track tests, record the effects, and give us full traceability. It enables us to record what's happened and to have full traceability throughout the testing process.

It provides us with a central place for all our tests and all our test results.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes the support has been very good. At other times, the wait has been a bit long to get a response.

We were previously just recording all our test evidence in Word documents. So we needed a test center.

Make sure that you set it up correctly, and make sure you use the full range of tools in it. It will provide you with enough information for you to produce reports and get a full understanding from what you have done.

Our most important criteria when we choose a solution are reliability and scalability.

It's our main hub for everything around testing, especially when it comes to defect and department management.

It gives us a uniform way of working and reporting on defects as a project progresses. We've been using it for so long, it's become a standard part of our working protocols.

ALM bridges our development gap, but it's not quite full-scale yet. We'd like to see more functionalities so that we can use it to seamlessly helps us bring applications from development into production.

We never have issues with deployment.

I'd say it's stable 100% of the time. We never have outages.

I don't know if we're really a large scale user. We have around 230 users, and scalability has never been an issue. I think it's because we've been using it for so long that when we have an issue, we can solve it ourselves.

It depends on the case, but most of the time first-line support is okay, but in most cases we have to go to second-line support.

We work with many partners and contractors, and they always come in and say "we would like to use another tool." I always challenge them and say, "If you can give me clear advantages on paper of going with another tool, then I'll go." So far, no one's been able to convince me.