No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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
12th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 1.9%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 9.6%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management9.6%
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira1.9%
Other88.5%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RS
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.
GS
Partner at IS Nordic AS
Manages multiple releases seamlessly
We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The program is very stable, and that is why we have so much success with it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"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."
"My impression of the stability is very positive."
"Test Management for Jira provides a repository for our test cases."
"The program is very stable and scalable."
"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."
"ALM allows everyone to work at the same time, doing defects and reporting the same way."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"The independent view of elevated access is good, and the elevated instructions being sent to our SQL is valuable."
"Quality Center is a very powerful tool."
"The stability is very good."
"The most valuable features are ALM's flexibility and performance."
"With the addition of BPT (Business Process Testing), QC along with QTP has been the choice for test automation in most of the IT businesses."
 

Cons

"Capability for scalability is basic, it's not as sophisticated as I would like."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"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 don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr it takes about 5-10 minutes."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"Something that needs to improve is the model of the licensing. For instance, if you have two packs from two servers, you need to buy two licenses."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"Our experience with the HPE support was not great."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"The initial setup was not straightforward."
"Some improvement to the Requirements Management are needed."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
 

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."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
31%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
 

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...
What needs improvement with Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?
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 manua...
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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 bottlen...
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.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

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)
Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.