Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

Adaptavist and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. Adaptavist is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.0, while OpenText is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.2. Adaptavist holds a 2.8% mindshare in TMT, compared to OpenText’s 12.5% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of Adaptavist users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Adaptavist Test Management ...

Read 5 Adaptavist Test Management for Jira reviews

399 Views
303 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

5,181 Views
1,399 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Adaptavist Test Management ...

OpenText Application Qualit...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira are competing products in application quality and test management. Data indicates that Adaptavist Test Management for Jira has superior features, which provides it with an advantage over OpenText, despite any pricing and support benefits OpenText might have.

Features: OpenText Application Quality Management offers a comprehensive solution with strong test management, tracking, and reporting capabilities along with robust integration with development tools. Conversely, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira delivers a highly customizable and seamlessly Jira-integrated solution, facilitating easy test case management and automation. The superior integration and flexibility of Adaptavist give it an edge over OpenText in terms of features.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Application Quality Management could benefit from a more intuitive interface and streamlined deployment process. Additionally, enhanced customization options and improved integration with a wider range of tools would be advantageous. Adaptavist Test Management for Jira could improve its documentation and tutorial offerings to assist new users. It may also benefit from expanding integration capabilities beyond Jira to other widely used platforms and addressing minor bugs reported in user feedback.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Adaptavist Test Management for Jira showcases smoother and quicker integration into Jira environments, with an intuitive interface that supports rapid deployment. OpenText's deployment process can be complex, requiring extensive configuration which could delay the setup. While OpenText offers strong customer support, Adaptavist's efficient deployment aids in faster adaptation and readiness for operations.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Application Quality Management generally involves a higher initial setup cost, potentially affecting ROI negatively. Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, however, typically provides a more cost-effective solution with quicker ROI due to its seamless integration with Jira and fewer deployment complications. This results in a lower total cost of ownership for Adaptavist, making it a more appealing option for budget-conscious tech buyers focused on maximizing returns.

To learn more, read our detailed Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Adaptavist Test Management ...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Application Qualit...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (4th), Quality Management Software (4th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 2.8%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.5%, up from 11.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	12.5%
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira	2.8%
Other	84.7%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Ramakanta Sahu

Director of Product at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore

Has dashboard and reporting features that help us identify and address red flags

I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manual processes would be helpful. Second, enhancing the connectivity with third-party tools like Teams or Slack would be valuable. One challenge with integrating Adaptavist Test Management for Jira into workflows is ensuring it accurately tags and incorporates all relevant stories and epics. Sometimes, it’s unclear if the tool considers all dependencies and backlog items, which can affect how risks are assessed. However, it sometimes seems to miss this high-level perspective, which can be a limitation based on how the product is designed. This has been a concern for those who use it regularly, although I don’t manage these aspects personally.

Read full review

Hosney Osman

Senior Operation Engineer at Vodafone

Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities

Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Our software development process primarily uses Adaptive Test Management for Jira to monitor real-time risks across all stories and sprint planning. Additionally, we use it to create action plans for high-priority risks."

"It is a scalable solution."

"The program is very stable and scalable."

"We don't use technical support. We have an office in Austria that provides us with solutions. Also, this solution is pretty simple and user-friendly. We don't really need help with it."

"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."

"The stability is very good."

"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"The integration with UFT is nice."

"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."

"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."

"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."

"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

Cons

"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."

"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."

"I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr is take about 5-10 minutes."

"I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manual processes would be helpful. Second, enhancing the connectivity with third-party tools like Teams or Slack would be valuable."

"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."

"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."

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

"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."

"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."

"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."

"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"

"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's pricing is a bit expensive, considering the kind of risk analysis and visibility we want, given that it's built on top of the Jira platform and other Atlassian products. It's priced slightly higher than similar products, maybe five to ten percent more."

"The licensing is rather expensive for those that have many users."

"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."

"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)."

"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."

"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."

"The pricing is expensive nowadays."

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

36%

Computer Software Company

29%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Performing Arts

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

Performing Arts

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	39
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	161

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?

The tool's pricing is a bit expensive, considering the kind of risk analysis and visibility we want, given that it's built on top of the Jira platform and other Atlassian products. It's priced slig...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.

See all answers

Comparisons

Zephyr Enterprise vs Adaptavist Test Management for Jira

Compared 32% of the time

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs Adaptavist Test Management for Jira

Compared 24% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Adaptavist Test Management for Jira

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText DevPartner vs Adaptavist Test Management for Jira

Compared 20% of the time

More Adaptavist Test Management for Jira Competitors

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 16% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 13% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 11% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira

October 2025

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira report

Download Adaptavist Test Management for Jira product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

September 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager

Overview

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is the full, featured, enterprise ready test management solution directly in Jira. It offers full traceability across issues, requirements, test cases, and execution. The tool allows for flexibility and customisation for test plans and runs. It offers a free and flexible REST API, includes the ability to automate bulk tests, and enables seamless integration with most continuous integration tools. The in-depth reporting capability gives users the ability to analyse and share test data results between development and business teams. It’s the single source of truth to track, manage and optimise your whole test lifecycle right inside Jira software.

Try it now https://marketplace.atlassian....

See the overview video

Benefits:

Drive reusability across Jira with cross-project hierarchical repositories for all test assets
Improve collaboration with flexible workflows between traditional and Agile development teams
Enhance coverage with end-to-end traceability across all test artifacts
Eliminate duplication to increase efficiency with versioning, test data parameters and shared step features
Improve visibility and functionality with 70 cross-project reports and gadgets
Reduce management time and effort, with rich APIs for integration with test automation and DevOps tools
Allows teams to seamlessly collaborate and manage multiple versions of test cases in parallel while providing an audit history of changes

Features:

Easy drag and drop organisation, planning and execution
Hierarchical folders to manage and reuse assets across Jira projects, releases and sprints
Test case libraries including versioning, shared steps and test data parameters
Test plans and runs to manage and track test execution cycles
Full traceability of test cases, requirements, test execution results and defects
70 cross-project reports, gadgets and Confluence Macros to track the coverage of your tests with advanced cross project reporting
Global and project level settings for customisation and standardisation
Custom fields for test cases, test steps, test plans and test runs
Migration function to import test cases from files or legacy test management tools
REST APIs for integration with test automation and DevOp tools

Use Cases:

Integrate CI tools such as Jenkins, Bamboo, Travis CI or other development applications like Github, Bitbucket, Datadog via the REST API for end-to-end integration across test case management, execution, and reporting
Automate testing at scale, whilst maintaining traceability inside Jira. Scaled to 10,000+ tests across multiple configurations, publishing results in Jira in under 30 minutes
Increase efficiency by significantly reducing time spent on test case specification and management
Benefit from reusability across Jira projects and single points of maintenance when reusing and organizing test cases
Improved visibility of software testing process and quality with 70 out-of-the-box reports, including real-time dashboards
Clear end-to-end traceability of requirements, tests, and defects ensuring that the delivered software meets requirements.

Adaptavist

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

IBM, John Lewis, Trip Advisor, Netgear, Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Sapient

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Buyer's Guide

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

September 2025

Free Report: Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management

Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management 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.