We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Test Management and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The stability is very good."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
More IBM Engineering Test Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Test Management is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. IBM Engineering Test Management is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Test Management writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". IBM Engineering Test Management is most compared with TestRail, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and TestRail. See our IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
