We performed a comparison between Atlassian Confluence and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Liferay and others in Corporate Portals (Enterprise Information Portals)."The most beneficial aspect is real-time collaboration, allowing multiple users to work on the same documents simultaneously."
"The customization that Confluence offers is one of its most useful features. You can customise it based on the specific project you are working on. It also supports multiple languages."
"The most valuable features of Atlassian Confluence are version management and search and linkage to the JIRA tickets. They are integrated very well together. You can have links from many places and can easily jump from one to the other. If you want to find all the information about a topic, you only need to click and you receive the information."
"It seems highly scalable. There are 500 end users using this solution."
"The scalability is enough for our use cases. It covers all our needs."
"I like the documentation. It's a central platform, and there are many things that I can do with it. I'm very pleased about it."
"The best feature is document management."
"The solution helped us to see where we were going wrong and where we were doing good, and that helped us to make proper decisions"
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"The product can scale."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"The scalability for larger companies could be improved."
"The cost of the solution is too high."
"There is room for improvement in maybe the tree structure for articles. If you have a lot of articles, it becomes difficult to navigate."
"I would like to see the text editor upgraded from its current limited abilities."
"We would like there to be more advanced data manipulation features available in this solution, such as creating more complex charts, and a column freezing option."
"Some macros can be technical, and they are better managed on the Confluence cloud rather than on-premises. For example, when you add an image on the cloud, you can resize it just by using the mouse. This is not the case on-premises yet. You have to write pixels of the size of the image sometimes. Some of the very old macros are still there, and some of them are technical. It can be hard for users if they are not from an IT background to understand how to use them quickly."
"I would like to see integration with Slack."
"The product is considered expensive."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"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 is not a scalable solution."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Atlassian Confluence is ranked 2nd in Corporate Portals (Enterprise Information Portals) with 99 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Atlassian Confluence is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Atlassian Confluence writes "Good usability, helpful community support, and facilitates well-structured documentation ". 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 ". Atlassian Confluence is most compared with Microsoft Teams, Office 365, Microsoft OneDrive, SharePoint and Zendesk, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
We monitor all Corporate Portals (Enterprise Information Portals) 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.
