OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Requirements sync and traceability: This allows us to see how many requirements have been tested and to show auditors this information easily.
• Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots.

QC has been invaluable in the past for documenting our testing process, especially when needed for audits.

The Active-X technology requires client-side installations that are difficult to manage in environments where the tester's PCs are locked down to prevent installs. Test management is too rigidly dedicated to older ways of testing with scripted test cases. More support for newer approaches, such as exploratory testing or behavior driven testing would make QC more relevant to the way testing is done in many current contexts.

ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers.

As far as the test structure goes, you are limited to to a step-by-step test case with description, expected result, and actual result for each step by default. This makes it difficult to support an exploratory testing approach with ALM. Of course, much of this part of the tool can be customized, but it still pales in comparison to something like the Test and Feedback tool that Microsoft provides for exploratory testing.

My understanding is that the newer Agile Manager product is more friendly to exploratory approaches, but I have not used this product yet.

We have been using this solution for 16 years.

In terms of stability, the QC client crashes often when attempting to expand a node on a tree. Upgrades are a nightmare and documentation is difficult to understand.

There were no issues with scalability, but I have never managed a large user base.

Technical support has gotten better than it was a few years ago, but Tier-1 seems to just go through the motions of asking questions I've already answered.

I have used other solutions, but many do not have the traceability requirements that ALM does.

The initial setup was highly complex, mostly because of the database setup. Upgrades are even worse, especially if you need to migrate to a new server, since the repository needs to be copied over.

Make sure you get the correct license for your needs. The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only). I have no idea where they get their pricing numbers from, but they seem to always be negotiable.

I have used Oracle's Test Management solution, Zephyr, Bugzilla, TestTrack, JIRA, and others.

Be sure to have a DBA available when you install. There have almost always been changes needed to the DB when I have installed the application.

In our company, the most interesting thing is that ALM can be used for manual testing. The testers can define, by themselves, how they structure the test and then execute it. All the results, both the positive and negative one, are collected. There is easy defect creation.

On the other side, if you look at it as a project manager, you have to see the results, i.e., the current status of the project.

Afterwards, if you get an outage, it is important that you can show the regulators that you did a good job, you executed everything, and you went in production with a concrete status, with no big issues or critical errors.

Our biggest problem with ALM is the version upgrade and especially the migration.

We have 1400 projects which are active. With the next version upgrade, we expect more than 3000 projects that have to be migrated.

The migration itself takes months. Here is something that can be improved. It is very important for us, otherwise each migration would kill us.

I’ve been using ALM since 2004.

If you find the right patch, then it is stable. You can stay with that for years. In our situation, it takes a very long time to roll out a patch and even more time to bring a new release.

ALM is for sure scalable. We are running 1400 active projects with 15,000 users. Concurrently, we have around 1000 users. If there is a performance issue, we have to find out what the reason is. It is true, in most cases, that we need an additional database server. The application servers, if they have enough power, scale a lot.

For such an experienced team as my mine, who have been working with the product for more than ten years, it is not that easy dealing with technical support. They often do not have the knowledge that we have. It takes a while to train them so they understand what our issues are and we have to connect to second or third level support.

The collaboration between HPE and us, especially over the past ten years, has been very good. For that reason, I try to bring in more HPE products, if needed.

This is managed by Tieto, our managed service testing partner. We use ALM as a repository for our automated test scripts. This is only the very beginning of the of our testing and managed testing service journey. The reason we use ALM is it's ability to schedule tests and nightly runs. It creates reports and statistics.

We are only starting off now. I'm able to present the progress on our work with the test-information initiative. I can keep a close eye on what's going on to monitor the progress and to schedule the test runs.

I used Quality Center 5-10 years ago, and I had no issues with it. It is also the de facto industry standard of test management tools. I don’t have enough insight at this point in time. If you ask me in half a year's time, I'm sure I'll have loads more information.

We have had no stablity issues so far.

I know for a fact that it's possible to scale it up. We might add another test management tool in-house that's been there for a long time called Rec Test; a Swedish solution.

It’s a very simple test management and requirement tool. But in the long run, ALM will probably support us better, so that is on my radar to keep track of and see how we can implement them better. This will take a lot of training and convincing of end-users.

I have not used technical support myself, but Tieto is actually doing that in an effort to improve their own framework and initiate a closer relationship with HPE.

Setup was a very smoothly written, spot-on theater.

Not formally, but informally through my own experience. Our use with Rec Test, as well certainly requires more training. It requires a more structured way of working. You really need to set up a good structure, and make sure everyone is following that structure. Otherwise you'll have a mess in no time.

Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products. There are a few open source ones that handle test management, but right now HPE ALM is still the best solution to handle tests.

It helps us to keep track of everything happening. When you test the software you've got results. Results can be OK or not OK. If you just get the results in Excel or things like that, you cannot work as a team because just one person at a time will be able to access it. With ALM, we can have several people working on the same product at the same time. Then we use it a lot for trustability, so we can add trustability to the facts, to requirements. It's very useful for that to verify everything that happens.

As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration. This is lacking in the standard ALM which was great a few years ago but it did not evolve enough, and that's why we are waiting for Octane.

We've used it more than 15 years, so it's very stable. There is a new version coming, ALM Octane. Octane is new so we don't use it yet.

We have plenty of projects with the current ALM, so it scales well. I'm not afraid of an issue with Octane and believe it will be the same.

I'm disappointed with the support as they're not reactive enough. They don't know the product very well, and to have things changed we need to access R&D directly and then things move. Otherwise, it's kind of difficult.

Beforehand we were using just paper and Excel, and things like that. As soon as ALM was tested at the time we began to use it and sensed it's presence in the company and now every tester is using it.

For ALM it was complex because it's not fully web based so you need to install a client on your desktop and with all the Windows security stuff you need to be an admin on your desktop so it's a very complex set up. On the service side it's kind of complex but we have tech experienced people to do that and to set up the database and everything, so it's OK. With Octane it should be really much simpler because for the user because it's just a web application so you've got nothing to do.

I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive.

The first criteria we look at is functionality. We have plenty of different projects so we need a full spectrum of functionality. The problem we have today is the price. It's a very good solution but it's expense so we are challenged by our finals and everything but the price.

If you have the money then you can go with ALM, as it's a very good product. You won't have any surprises with it so that's good. Otherwise, there are some open source solutions that are a little bit less functional, but you can play with them and get them to work, products like Squash TM or things like that.

We have been involved in a lot of IT projects which need test management and for the test execution process, we are using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center.

We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress.

Most enterprise solutions are moving into the cloud and this solution could work on its cloud compatibility. For example, if I have an Amazon or a Google cloud, I would like to know how would it best fit into their cloud environment.

I have been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for approximately eight years.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a stable solution.

I have found Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to be scalable.

The technical support from Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is good, they are responsive.

I rate the technical support from Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a four out of five.

The initial setup is straightforward, it was not any more difficult than other setups.

The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable.

I would recommend Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to others.

I rate Micro Focus ALM Quality Center an eight out of ten.

• Test management for multiple products
• Risk-based testing
• Requirements mapping
• Reporting.

• Reusable test cases
• Requirement traceability
• Reporting.

Test cycles.

Bridge to JIRA and Tableau.

You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system. Later, go back to check the coverage you are missing, so you can plan ahead and maybe reuse the same set as next time. Sort of like creating templates and reusing them over and over.

We use the quality engineering testing tool plus the defect tracking to make our reports, projects, and quality better. Once we had the evidence to approve all the testing and all the coverage, the reporting went better. Usually, the products make it much easier to identify the issues we have.

It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup.

It's not flexible enough. The formatting is also an issue. For example, the project manager doesn't like the use it, even for requirements, because it's not easy for them to change it. If they make a mistake and go back, it is hard to change the formatting to make it good. So, they have to share or use another one that try to upload. But, after the upload, you cannot change it because the IDs are identified. It's hard for them to work somewhere in-between, adding something in there, then keep the rest of them record is still linked well.

It's difficult to change it. Let's say you set up the requirement, if you change the requirement, by adding any on bottom which won't cause an issue, but I want to add it in central somewhere, then you mess up all the linkage for the test plan and test lab.

This requirement piece is what I think is the biggest disadvantage for the Quality Center. I do know Micro Focus does have a bunch of the new tools, but that depends if a customer wants to change it, use a new tool or stay on an older tool.

Reporting is a bit complicated. They have a standard report, but if I don't want to use that, I have to use the Excel reporter.

I have used it for the start of the implementation at our organization using Quality Center versions: 8, 9, 10, and now, we're on 11.5.

We host it in-house, so basically we don't have any bad downtime. It runs mostly 24/7, so Quality Center is pretty good with stability.

So far, it hasn't been an issue.

I would give them a high score as they do a pretty good job.

In the Quality Center, there's a tool, which we started with, QuickTest Pro. From there, we started to use QuickTest Pro, later we introduced and evaluated it. It looked like the situation we needed.

However, we wanted tracking. We started with QuickTest Pro, but now we're doing this, which includes a lot of the different areas, like it handles the workflow and/or agile and involving many necessary departments.

I was involved in the initial setup. I installed configure, manager, and the patch providing user access, though now we have a team.

The setup is straightforward. It's not hard to set up. We even used the multi-complicated one because we didn't want have the database alone.

To someone looking at Quality Center, I would tell them: It's a good tool to use and the support is good. However, if you want a fancy and modernized tool with a fancy outlook, then Quality Center is not a good tool for you.

Most important criteria when choosing a vendor: personal style. I want to know who will be continually knowledgeable.

• They know what they are selling.
• They respond back quickly with accurate information.

If someone talks to me, and I try a few times, but I cannot get clear information from them, I may disqualify this vendor completely.