OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Customization
• Analysis view
• Test Plan
• Defect
• Centralized repository which can sync both onshore and offshore

The company needed an option to integrate all our open source tools like JIRA, Jenkins, LFT, UFT, etc., and Quality Center does this.

It should have the option to integrate open-source and third-party tools. I'd also like more collaboration options. They could make it more lightweight and improve its performance.

I've used it for eight years.

There were some data migration issues when we upgraded to the next version. This was with the user-defined table/column as the extra tables were complex when converting to the newer version.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

It's good, 8/10.

Technical Support:

It's good, 8/10.

We have other open source products that do not meet all our requirements

It was complex.

We did it in-house.

It’s good to use for a big organization.

I've been using Quality Center for 11 months.

As long as procedures are clear, then anyone can execute the tests. It no longer has to be the person that initially discovered the issue.

Full product is very complex plus the licensing left much to be improved.

No - We were a smaller company than most.

No - We were a smaller company than most.

No - We were a smaller company than most.

No dealings with them or the technical support

Unknown as was not involved in initial setup

In-house team

a. Check the licensing as we had to log off from the tool as the company could not afford a license for every person. This was bypassed eventually by having a client performing the login, get your data out and logoff.

It is a complete AQM suite: single repository for tests, requirements, defects, etc. 

• It provides visibility on release status and readiness. 
• It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations.

• Test management
• Requirements management
• Defects

• Pure-FTPd WebUI
• Single sign-on

Our primary use case is for regression testing.

We use Micro Focus products together to improve organizational SLAs.

Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view.

The QA needs improvement.

Three to five years.

You can plan your test execution very thoroughly with configurations and setups in the test lab. This is very unique in comparison with other tools.

To add test cases from the test plan in test lab, the filtering function is not very user-friendly. Comparing the functionality with the querying/filtering functionality from TFS, which is much more user-friendly, it is clearer and the default screen is almost full-sized,

Two years.

No.

No.

I do not know.

I have worked at other companies, I cannot choose between solutions.

No, I was not the admin of this application, and the setup itself is not complex, nor very straightforward (but somewhere in the middle).

I would not recommend this product If you have a small organization, which would not use this tool very often.

The pricing is very expensive, but it covers a full solution, which means, you will use a lot of functionalities and gain in time and efficiency.

No.

Features that support documentation and test results from Requirements through Test Cases to Scripts to Execution results (pass or fail), then to Defects.

Life was made easy by shifting the MS Office documentation to the product. We deal with our test cases and execution, and the mapping is taken care by the product. You pass/fail a test case and product tells you what requirements/features of the product are good to go into production.

Auto-generation of automation scripts. Integration into the UTF (earlier QTP) has little more scope to improve.

I've used this solution for four years.

No.

No.

A nine out of 10.

No.

Straightforward.

Very expensive.

Some Open Source tools, but did not choose them as they lack support.

Have a skilled person to do the administration. You will love the ease of reporting that results in.

The report feature has helped me to generate a quality index report which is a critical report for management decisions. The report is generated monthly.

There are many reports that are generated monthly from the tools which assist us in making key decisions concerning the quality of software and products.

The product creates a database per project and this results in poor disk space management, as well as frequent backup and restore. This should be improved upon.

We have been using this solution for four years.

There were no issues with stability.

There were no issues with scalability.

Technical support is good.

We did not use a different solution previously.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I suggest organizations should attempt cloud services.

We did not evaluate other options before this one.

It is a good product, but it still requires customization.

From a testing point of view, it takes us a step closer to automation. Our testing is quite manual at the moment. We can use it from start to finish; from testing business requirements right through user acceptance testing, load testing, and performance testing. That's a positive feature.

It has dramatically reduced the number of defects that go into production. There have been no serious outages, nor serious problems where we had to do a rollback or anything like that. The transition into production has been very smooth.

From a tool point of view, I would like see some integration into release management. That is the biggest pain point at this moment.

We bought this solution three years ago.

From a performance point of view, stability is very good.

ALM has not directly assisted scalability. I wouldn't say ALM assists with scalability at all.

I haven’t used technical support, but my team has. I don't know about their experience with them, but if they were not satisfied, I would have found out about it.

Don’t just focus on the technology and buying it, but rather focus on the processes behind the support of the technology. That was our biggest lesson.