OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

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.

The Defect Module helps the project team to track the defects in a structured and manageable way until defects closure.

Helps in terms of managing defects easily.

The technical support from the vendor is weak, as I believe the back end script support for the tool is not easy to access and modify by the customer.

12 years.

So far fine.

Not good.

No.

It depends on which version. The upgrade from version 9 to version 11 was not a straightforward upgrade because the whole platform changed. So the upgrade was a manual project and it took the organization a few months to upgrade all thousand projects.

Depends on company direction.

No.

Compare with other test management tools to see their benefits. We did compare with JIRA. Every tool has its own pros and cons. It depends on the organization's needs.

Allows us to do defect resolution from logging to resolution. It gives us an overview of all the defects and prioritization for resolution.

The dashboard was not working at first. Later on, it was difficult to customize it.

We have used it on and off for over four years.

All types of data can be seen in one place.

• Real-time insight into what’s going on.
• Helps us work aligned with reality.

It's doing what it should do, but it's a little bit costly. I would like to see some kind of testing analytics.

Stability is good; no problems.

So far, we have not had any scalability problems.

I was involved in the setup. It is an out-of-the-box, simple installation. Now we're doing data migration to the database. We are just reading the manual, but more people are involved. This is a normal process.

Start slowly.

When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria for me are that they are trustworthy and nearby.

• 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.

It's good, 8/10.

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.

The integration with MS Excel, test suite upload feature, Document builder and the test run process.

Helps in providing an archive of test suites for easy regression.

Also helps to keep track of the time spent on test executions, and defect management.

Two years plus.

The Client was needed in our network environment because the Web GUI was found to be unstable.

The client crashes every so often, but only when left idle for a while.

Majority of the tests done by my company are manual so QC serves majorly as a depository for our client.

Defect management, because it has allowed me to manage the defects throughout its lifecycle (from being opened to its resolution – closed); who is assigned to it and working on it, what are the issues, and why it is being held up. It gave valuable metrics.

It forced different parties to collaborate better. It gave a lot of information to team members, also additional information to stakeholders in the defect summary, and items to highlight, when needed.

At the time, the dashboard never really worked.

Three to five years.

Yes, there was a problem in stability when the number of test cases grew at a very fast pace. Adding more memory, backup, and restore remedied the instability.

I can’t remember any.

On a scale of one to 10: five.

Yes, it was forced on the company. Change was to facilitate management of defects between multiple parties.

It was straightforward because the test manager was consulted on how to go about setting it up.

It is very pricey. To be fair, it is geared for enterprise use. Unless the company and the decision maker (who would say “yes” to paying for it) is convinced on benefits of the product, it is not a go. Medium businesses would not buy into it.

Do the cost benefit analysis, and understand how the product/tool is a solution rather than a nice-to-have because it is flashy. It should fit the organization’s size and needs.