OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

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.

The overall task management. Managing all the assets and metrics.

I'm not familiar with all the changes, but they definitely have to be more DevOps friendly. They have to certainly be more open source friendly. That's the world we live in, where we can cut costs away from large-scale vendor contracts and service contracts. The ability to seamlessly integrate and provide more capability for those, managing those infrastructures and solutions, is going to be critical historically.

A lot of the vendor products - not just HPE or, in this case, Micro Focus, or whomever that I've dealt with over the years - were much more proprietary, much more exclusive. And what we're finding now is that the world doesn't work like that. Particularly as you move left and shift towards DevOps, application teams now don't consume from a central resource, they consume based upon decisions made internally to that application team.

Ultimately, what they need is flexibility. So any vendor product needs to have that intrinsic in its fiber, to be able to adopt open source, and integrate basically into almost anything, to expand out the choices available to an application; to make the decisions that need to be made independently at the time that they need to make them.

Not having looked at the latest, ALM Octane, just coming from the old world, at the time that it was necessary to implement a test management system to gather more information, metrics across different teams, different platforms, it served the purpose.

Things change constantly these days. There's a lot more going on. There are a lot more integrations available. I think if we're looking at the legacy owned product, I think its kind of come and gone as far as its ability to do what you need to do in a DevOps world. Any solutions in the future - I know ALM Octane is the heir apparent to the old infrastructure - it's going to have to be more DevOps friendly. It will need to be able to enable the consumers, the application's users who ultimately become the developers, to see the value in a more organized test management practice, versus more of a kind of hidden, under the sheets unit testing.

It's actually a whole trajectory of different solutions, different tests, that need to follow the pipeline for those folks. Anything that's not DevOps friendly, that's not DevOps easily consumable, to make the case for a more formal test management practice, is really going to end up by the wayside at the end of the day.

11 years.

My experience with the solution is that it has been fairly stable. What lies underneath is what creates the instability at the end of the day, the architecture that you are providing the solution on top of. I think once you figure out a viable, scalable approach to it, then the software itself, at least in my experience, has been very stable in running a test management operation.

It has met our needs. Just as long as you have the right architecture from the old days of physical server hardware to more of the newer stuff, which is VMware within datacenters - more virtualized.

And certainly the next rage for everybody is moving into Cloud infrastructure. So things are becoming much more self-service. You're getting model scaling. You're getting the things that are making the system more maintainable. But from a scalability standpoint, you want to be able to scale to the needs at the time that you need them. The Cloud certainly provides that capability.

I think like every company, they're changing the landscape. Support, in my experience, has been pretty good. There are always challenges based upon the routing/tier structure of who gets the issue first, how it gets routed, how it gets filtered down to the specific expertise that you need. That depends on your acumen as far as knowing your tooling, knowing your approach, what that's going to be.

Somebody who is very savvy, will obviously have frustrations coming into a tier-one support desk. Who they really need to go talk to at the end of the day may be somebody, and it will vary by company, like a tier-three, real low-level, very experienced resource support tech who fixes those issues. So it's going to vary based upon the customer's competency versus how they are routed through a support desk.

Testing is going to be testing. And the same challenges that you have in any of the different industries are going to be the challenges that you have in the ours, the insurance and financial industry, as well.

You know from DevOps to Agile, to Shift Left to Cloud, to managing your test assets efficiently and effectively, industry is really not going to make a difference.

I've been in a number of different sectors over the years. I've been in QA about 25 years, and having been in the natural gas industry, financials, insurance, HR systems. They are all pretty much the same challenges around testing. So I don't see a discrepancy in terms of the application you're testing. It's almost agnostic to the challenges that are innate with trying to test, within any type of development environment. Now, it just happens to be a more self-service DevOps model, where application teams make those decisions. But there's still always going to be those QA challenges.

I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects. Being able to build up a traceability matrix, being able to go through and show what's been covered, where your defects are, etc.

It's allowed us to be a little more consistent across the board. We have probably 80% of our QA teams using Quality Center. It is a system of record.

It really does allow our testers to work in a single application. It's not as good if you don't set things up in advance to work with other applications. But we're working on that part.

I'd like to see an easier way to upgrade and install. I'd like to see it less required to have a client. I know that Octane doesn't require a client, but Octane is not mature enough for our organization. I'd like to see some of the good points from that integrated into it.

I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations.

It's been around a really long time. It is very stable. It does require a little more work to upgrade, add patches, because you have to take it down. But then again, while it's running, we've had very little down time, very few issues from a system perspective.

When we do have to take it down, we usually take a full weekend, because we're a very large instance. But usually the install and upgrade goes through and takes three or four hours, and then it's just going through and running repair/realign or upgrade on the existing projects.

Quality Center is very scalable. We have over 700 active projects on our instance. That's projects, not users.

I've seen a lot of improvement over the years, from tech support. We are premier customers, or whatever the newest term is. We do meet biweekly with them and when we have an issue, we can escalate it and we get very fast response times.

We're a company that has gone through a lot of mergers and consolidations, and we've gone through and actually consolidated a lot of instances into ALM and, with that, the complexity is more with the users than it is with the application.

Getting it installed, getting it set up, that's the easy part. Getting people trained to use it, that's a little bit harder. But once people start using it, they find that they're not sure how they did their job before.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor to work with are:

• They need to be stable.
• They need to be financially sound.
• They need to have a good technology and support base.
• They also need to be responsive to the company, because it's a big company, so we expect people to respond.

I would advise a colleague considering this solution to start with a plan. Make sure you know what it is that you want to accomplish with Quality Center, and only add fields that will meet that. Use your current documentation, your current processes, to help design the fields and the projects for it, rather than just adding things one at a time. Don't allow a "wild west," which is where anybody can add fields, add workflow. You want to manage that from the top down.

ALM: You cannot just say one feature is most important. You get the most value
using all modules from Management to Defects. When you use the tool end-to-
end, you can pull efficient project reports (especially scorecards) from the
Dashboard. So everything is integrated and only then you can evaluate the tool
fairly. ALM is very flexible and each module can be used independently, but
when you do that you are only using the tool as storage, not as a test
management tool.

UFT: It became much more stable tool in terms of object recognition over the
years. It is easy to use as long as the user has basic software development
knowledge and understands that the software automation process is not just a
record/playback.

ALM: We currently successfully manage all testing projects due to ALM’s invaluable capabilities, which are listed below:

• Built on best practices with a flexible structure, organization, and documentation for all phases of the application testing process.
• Serves as a central repository for all testing assets and provides a clear foundation for the entire testing process.
• Establishes seamless integration and smooth information flow from one stage of the testing process to the next.
• Supports the analysis of test data and coverage statistics, to provide a clear picture of an application’s accuracy and quality at each point in its life-cycle.
• Supports communication and collaboration among distributed testing teams.
• Reduces time needed to create test execution summary reports.
• Reduces the time needed to write and execute manual tests with HPE Sprinter tool.
• Users can capture their actions automatically as steps in a formal test.

UFT: We save time executing smoke and regression tests. We also use UFT to create test data.

I would like to see better Reporting functionality especially more sophisticated graphs, for example Actual vs. Planned or high level progress graphs using indicators like traffic lights. I would like to see more sophisticated or flexible Dashboard views, such as editing and resizing. I use scorecards and pull them into the Project Reports using customized templates. Scorecards can only be refreshed from the Site Admin, which then test leads has to depend on the ALM Admin to refresh the reports if needed after the scheduled auto run. There should be ability to refresh scorecards (execute KPIs) from the project itself or give more frequent auto refresh option like even every 5 min. This is a really burden on the team.

I would like to see Requirements mapped to test steps so we can combine multiple requirements validation in to one test case but map the verification steps to the associated requirements, so if the step fails only fails one requirement not all. When we are operating in an Agile world we do not have time to write test cases to capture one-to-one coverage. I know ALM allows many-to-many mapping but we cannot get true requirement pass/fail status if we use many-to-many option. Test configuration option kind of on the right path, but can only be use for data driven test cases, I cannot add design steps. If we can add design steps to a subset of a main test using Test Configuration option, I think we may be able to differentiate individual requirement that was failed without failing all the requirements mapped to the main test case.

We have used this solution for 17 years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

In terms of technical support, I usually get solutions to my issues. I did not have any issues to call technical support for a long time.

If you follow the instruction, the setup is straightforward. It definitely requires an experience user to do the installation and setups, especially for upgrades.

I always used ALM and UFT. However, I had training and evaluated IBM JAZZ tools.

In ALM, the most valuable features are the overview, the primary requirements, test cases, defects, and traceability. Manual applications handle the regulations, so we must have the tracking capabilities. Even some of the core systems are not allowed to go down. It's very important that we know what we have tested and what is working and what is not working. That we can find out from ALM.

Stability is no problem.

The first time we installed it was a long, long time ago. We bought small, five license versions of Test Director from Mercury in 2007 and it has continuously grown since then. Today we have 600 users and 130 active projects. The environment gets bigger and bigger all the time.

It's complicated to upgrade. For ALM, we have roughly 600 users. In ALM, we have roughly 130 active projects. So it takes a long time to upgrade. Some of the big projects are 5 GB of data. To migrate that to a new version takes maybe two or three hours, even if we have huge hardware. 

It's very complicated. We'd gladly like to upgrade to newer versions. We plan to use Octane, but we will not end up in a situation where we have two tools. We would like to, but we must find a smarter way to do some kind of migration. Several of the applications have regulations that we follow and we must be able to track 10 years back. We can't just throw away the data we have in there. 

If not upgrading ALM, probably they would like to search and would like to find something else. They really need to find a smart way to migrate some part of it. Of course, it's a totally different tool.

We have looked at many alternatives. We have compared ALM to almost everything. We even have JIRA for smaller projects now. ALM and JIRA are two totally different products that are for two totally different needs. 

For example, we have an on-premises solution of ALM. You have to log into the active directory, so it's not so easy to give to someone outside the company. It's also struggling with different browsers. It's doesn’t work very well on a Mac, for example. The Mac developers and the Mac teams don't like ALM. Now it works much better on Chrome, but we're struggling there as well. They haven't been following the world with browser support. It's problematic to use ALM in Edge, for example.

But with JIRA, on the other hand, you don't have any requirements. It's easy to set up. It's easy to start up and have your backlog there. But after a while, you figure out what is going on. For maintenance and for testing, you need a plugin for this, you need a plugin for that, and you need a plugin for something else. It's not so easy to get the overview or the helicopter view of it, if you compare that with ALM. But I understand why some like it and it has some kind of need. I hope we can mine that capital when we upgrade to Octane.

ALM is a giant library, and Performance Center and LoadRunner require it to run.

We use it to support Performance Center and it runs underneath it as one big system. The advantage is that we can test applications before they go to production, and as long as we're testing in a production-sized environment, we have a pretty good idea how an application will perform in production.

It's like the overall software framework, and Performance Center is just leveraging that framework for storing things such as tests, scripts and test results. ALM works together with LoadRunner and Performance Center as one big system. As newer protocols are developed and newer technologies come along, it's nice to see HPE be ahead of that as much as possible so that by the time that it's really needed, they're already ahead of the curve and they've got most of their performance issues resolved as far as how the software's going to run.

The stability on the old versions is good. On the newer versions, the bleeding edge is still being worked on.

It's very scalable. No issues with scalability.

Premium support is great, but before that when we just had general support, it was not all that great. We had issues with trying to get support to call us back on tickets and turnaround time on resolution.

We previously used IBM Rational.

It's not exactly straightforward. Their instructions were not all they could have been, but we still got it installed.

As far as we know, it's the best tool on the market right now. They're considered the Cadillacs of the testing tools right now. Don't necessarily go with their most recent version code release right now. It kind of depends on what your needs are and the size of computer shop that you've got.

There are many valuable features HP Quality Center has to offer, but if I had to narrow it down I would say the following for me are the most valuable:

1. QC has the ability to integrate and execute test cases with HP QTP with viewable test results.
2. QC has the ability group test cases in a hierarchical format as well as the ability to reuse test cases by calling a test.
3. The ability to integrate with MS Excel.
4. An extremely useful feature of QC is that it allows linking defects with higher level artifacts.
5. Requirements Module, Test Plan Module, Test Case Module, and last but not least, defect module and generating reports.

What makes this product very useful in improving the quality of an organization, is the fact that it has the ability to create a test script and then to write them in detailed steps. For all test case executions, we are able to generate customizable reports and charts, which is very useful for sending reports to higher management. With these great features, QC has made communicating between upper management and the QA team much easier, which gives better insights to our defect tracking and managing. This reporting is then better used for tracking the finances for the team.

There were few issues I faced while using Quality Center, but I’m sure they have been fixed in the new ALM version. One issue I have faced was that while I was importing test cases from Excel to Quality Center, it was not asking to check out the test cases but instead it would overwrite the default test cases and create a new version for it. This was not a consistent issue but it did happen a few times.

I have used HP Quality Center for about 4 years. I have knowledge on the current ALM version but personally have not used it in any projects yet.

Quality Center has a Starter Edition which is usually for entry-level quality assurance organizations and the Enterprise version (originally called Mercury TestDirector) which is for medium to larger level releases. The new release of the software is HP ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) 11 has integrated the capabilities of Quality Center Enterprise with Project Planning and Tracking, Enterprise Release Management, and Asset Sharing for requirements management through application delivery. HP ALM’s intended use is more for large and global organizations.

I’ve personally never had deployment issues.

Quality Center for the most part is pretty stable besides some common issues.

Scalability-wise, Quality Center is an awesome tool. Quality Center itself doesn’t actually place a limit on creating projects or folders. Most of it will depend on the users, servers, and hardware and not the Quality Center client itself. But the more data the user has in a specific module, makes it slower to load on the client. Most of all, it will depend on the implementation.

HP Quality Center is not a new product and has been out in the market for quite some time so there are plenty of online support and help that can be found. Quality Center forums can be found for almost any issues that can come up anytime.

Quality Center has a very intuitive GUI which makes it fairly easy to use and follow. Even if you are a beginner picking up on how to use this product will not take much time. But it can be difficult to implement as it is dependent on the size of the organization on the amount of teams. Identifying current methods of communications is critical to implementing HP Quality Center.

Quality Center can be a bit costly, but the ROI is great for all the great features you get.

Quality Center is a very powerful tool. It is not only a defect tracking tool but also a management tool. It can be used for everything from creating requirements and test plans to test creation, execution and defect reporting.

It is underutilized at the moment because we use this solution for tracking the test scenarios, test results, and defects.

We are looking at integrating a tool that can provide integrations with the other DevOps tools.

At this time, we don't feel that this solution has any value. We are communicating with Micro Focus to address this commission where we feel that it has more value added to it.

The integration needs improvement. It is not integrated with the rest of the ecosystem. It's a stand-alone tool right now used for testing and defects. We are considering and testing Octane because it seems to have more integration with the DevOps ecosystem.

I started using this solution when it was Test Director. This was before it was upgraded to Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. 

I have been using it for the last 10 years.

We are not working with the latest version. Rather than upgrade to the latest version, we are considering moving to Octane.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable.

It is not a scalable solution. I am not satisfied with the scalability of this product.

We have less than 50 concurrent users.

This is a product acquired from HPE. Before this, we were not satisfied with technical support. Micro Focus seems to be trying to improve their support quality, but we haven't seen it yet.

It doesn't take a long time to install this solution.

It's a perpetual license.

We are reviewing other solutions and looking to upgrade to Octane. We are currently, in the testing phases with Octane.

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