Atlassian ALM vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Atlassian and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Atlassian is ranked #18, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1. Atlassian holds a 1.6% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.6% mindshare. Additionally, 60% of Atlassian users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Atlassian ALM

Read 6 Atlassian ALM reviews

699 Views
625 Comparison Views

60% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Read 207 OpenText ALM / Quality Center reviews

6,236 Views
2,427 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Atlassian ALM

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText ALM/Quality Center and Atlassian ALM are products competing in the application lifecycle management space. Atlassian ALM appears to have the upper hand due to its expansive features and agile capabilities, despite OpenText ALM/Quality Center's strong test management and customer support.

Features: OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust test management, comprehensive defect tracking, and detailed requirements management. It ensures high data integrity and supports extensive customizations. Atlassian ALM provides seamless integration with other Atlassian tools, efficient project tracking, and strong support for agile methodologies.

Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM/Quality Center can enhance its integration capabilities and simplify its user interface. Increasing cloud options and improving agility support could also benefit users. Atlassian ALM could improve its standalone test management features, enhance defect tracking, and expand its reporting functionalities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM/Quality Center involves a more traditional, complex setup, providing strong support options. Atlassian ALM offers flexible deployment with cloud and on-premise options, focusing on ease of use and a broad community support approach. Atlassian's relative simplicity aids quicker deployment.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM/Quality Center has higher initial setup costs but offers substantial ROI through robust test management. Atlassian ALM presents a more affordable entry point with significant ROI due to agile capabilities and tool integration. Atlassian's pricing model often delivers a competitive ROI advantage.

To learn more, read our detailed Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

Atlassian ALM

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

207

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Atlassian ALM is 1.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Xie Zhifeng

R&D Director, CTO at CSDN

Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes

We have both small-sized and big-sized customers. The small ones generally have around 50 to 200 users. The larger ones, for example, in China, have around 15,000 platform users. So, the number of small companies is high, but the total business value comes from the big companies. Atlassian ALM can handle different user volumes. For customers with more than 500 users, we recommend deploying a high availability (HA) architecture. The solution supports both single-node and HA modes. I would rate the scalability a five out of ten. It could be better in terms of scalability with more users. It could be improved to better handle larger numbers of users. We have clients using Atlassian ALM both in China and globally. We have around 20 clients using this solution.

Read full review

Paul Grossman

Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate

Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.

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. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.

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

"This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."

"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."

"The most valuable feature is the Scrum board."

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."

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

"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."

"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."

"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

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

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."

"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."

"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."

"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."

"We would like to have support for agile development."

"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."

"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."

"The initial setup was not straightforward."

"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 performance could be faster."

"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a community edition available, but if the price were lower for the addons then more people would use the full version."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

"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."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."

"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."

"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."

"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."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Government

10%

Educational Organization

68%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Atlassian ALM?

The most valuable feature is the Scrum board.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Atlassian ALM?

The pricing is on the higher side. I would give it an eight out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Atlassian ALM?

There is room for improvement in the high-level project management. In future releases, I would like to have a planning feature for high-level project management.

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.

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?

We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...

See all answers

Comparisons

Jira vs Atlassian ALM

Compared 45% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Atlassian ALM

Compared 16% of the time

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs Atlassian ALM

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText ALM Octane vs Atlassian ALM

Compared 8% of the time

Polarion ALM vs Atlassian ALM

Compared 7% of the time

More Atlassian ALM Competitors

OpenText ALM Octane vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 20% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 20% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 14% of the time

Jira vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Atlassian ALM

April 2025

Download Atlassian ALM product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM

Overview

How to use Atlassian to manage application lifecycle: Atlassian builds software to pull together all the elements of application lifecycle management. Product management, developers, Q/A, dev ops, and business stake holders all have their own ways of interacting with application lifecycle management and Atlassian splits up the process into a few buckets.

1) Collaborate to plan and envision work

Atlassian's Confluence is a collaboration platform for building and driving consensus. Call stake holders in to give approval, comment on, and share pages and integrate with the rest of the development toolchain.

2) Build and track roadmaps

Atlassian's JIRA Software offers incredibly flexible project management with custom workflows, plugins, and high visibility rollups through JIRA Portfolio. Issues can be embedded right in confluence, or be used to kick off new branches in version control. Keep everyone on the same page with project progress.

3) Track and deploy code

Atlassian's Bitbucket is the world's most robust Git solution. The ability to deploy multiple-nodes with failover, global mirroring for super fast clones, and powerful code review control set it apart from competition. Bitbucket also has a mature plugin and hooks system that allows extensions and connection to a suite of CI software.

4) Support and Iterate

Track support requests, bugs, and route users in the right direction with JIRA Service Desk. With the same custom workflow engine as JIRA Software, a tight integration with the rest of the stack, and a knowledge base function make it a powerful addition to the ALM stack.

5) Tie it together

ChatOps helps tie every part of the ALM together. Get stake holders in the same room to manage a project, teams in the same page to manage their work, or plugin automated members to report on CI status, pull requests, page changes in Confluence, or bug reports. Like every piece of Atlassian's ALM there is a mature API for extending plugins and everything can be hosted behind your own firewall.

Atlassian

OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Facebook, NASA, Cisco, eBay, Redfin, Toyota, Kaiser Permanente, Gilt, CSIRO, Autodesk, The Daily Telegraph, CODE, Illumnia

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

Buyer's Guide

Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Free Report: Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.