OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

Organizations report that OpenText ALM / Quality Center improves performance testing and project visibility. Users note enhanced testing practices and a substantial reduction in defects. ROI is generally perceived positively through time and cost savings, especially within automated processes. Some entities achieve significant efficiency in collaboration and project execution. Adoption has facilitated substantial gains in tracking requirements and defects with improved traceability and structure, outweighing its cost. Quantitative ROI figures remain elusive, yet perceived value exists.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is considered costly by many users, who highlight licensing and setup as significant expenses. Several recommend negotiating with vendors to lower costs. The pricing is seen as more suited for large enterprises due to its comprehensive feature set, which may be overkill for smaller companies. Licenses are available in seat and concurrent models, with the latter being advantageous for large teams. SaaS options can offer cost savings but are less flexible than on-premises solutions.

• "We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
• "It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
• "The pricing is expensive nowadays."

Organizations primarily use OpenText ALM / Quality Center for test management, including organizing test cases, executing tests, defect tracking, and managing requirements. It supports automated and manual tests, improving testing efficiency with centralization. Users integrate with tools like UFT for automation and JIRA for requirement synchronization. Reporting allows visibility into testing progress. It's widely employed across industries for tasks like regression, integration, and UAT, providing comprehensive lifecycle management and a complete repository for testing artifacts.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center customer service is rated highly by many users, with responsiveness and helpfulness noted but some criticize response times. Technical support varies; some users appreciate quick, knowledgeable assistance while others find it slow or lacking in expertise. Support often comes from internal teams or third-party partners rather than directly from the company, leading to fluctuating satisfaction levels. Some find self-service through forums and third-line support beneficial for complex issues.

Most users found OpenText ALM / Quality Center's initial setup straightforward and simple, requiring minimal technical expertise. Some reported challenges due to complex organizational requirements, infrastructure, or network security issues. Others faced difficulties with specific installations, like client installations or database setup. Experienced teams and guidance from support improved the setup process. Different user needs resulted in varying complexities, particularly for larger enterprises or those with specific customization and integration requirements.

Users find OpenText ALM/Quality Center highly scalable, supporting large organizations with many users and projects without notable performance issues. Some have mentioned challenges like licensing constraints and performance at high data volumes. Effective scaling up depends on infrastructure and proper implementation. Users see it meeting project needs across varying scales and appreciate its flexibility in handling numerous concurrent users. Performance can occasionally suffer with larger data but generally remains favorable.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center is noted for its stability, yet some users report occasional crashes, performance slowdowns, and difficulties during upgrades. Most users do not face stability issues, but network or setup inadequacies can impact performance. Memory constraints and large data volumes may occasionally cause instability. Stability reportedly improves with proper version updates and implementation. Some users experienced database connection issues. Nonetheless, many find it stable for long-term use.