OpenText ALM/Quality Center and Codebeamer are competitors in the application lifecycle management category. Codebeamer seems to have the upper hand due to its emphasis on traceability, collaboration, and regulatory compliance.
Features: OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides extensive customization, integrates with various automation tools, and maintains a comprehensive repository of testing artifacts. It offers strong linking capabilities between requirements, defects, and test cases, along with customizable reporting. Codebeamer emphasizes full traceability, excellent collaboration, and regulatory compliance with comprehensive lifecycle management features, such as an intuitive Smart Requirement View.
Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM/Quality Center faces challenges with high licensing costs, rigidity in its licensing model, and user interface complexity. It lacks support for non-Internet Explorer browsers. Codebeamer could improve with enhanced processing power and better integration with other platforms like Jira. Usability improvements in its UI and addressing small application glitches are areas for development.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText ALM/Quality Center can be deployed across Public Cloud, On-premises, and Private Cloud environments, but support is critiqued for response time and knowledgeability. Inconsistent support experiences sometimes require escalation. Codebeamer offers flexible deployment options with On-premises, Private, and Hybrid Cloud availability. Customer service is generally responsive, though users have reported occasional delays in technical support.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM/Quality Center is seen as expensive, with high licensing costs and a rigid pricing model. However, users find good ROI from its features for large-scale projects. Codebeamer is moderately priced, offering competitive pricing relative to other ALM solutions. It provides time savings and efficient project management, contributing positively to ROI, though its pricing is noted as being on the higher side.
ROI can manifest through cost savings and increased development speed.
The solution has produced a return on investment.
Codebeamer saves time and money for certain use cases, such as AUTOSPICE implementations.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
If I raise an issue as high priority, I receive responses in six to eight hours.
For out-of-the-box support, the customer service from PTC is satisfactory.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
In a project, I have experienced up to 180 licenses running during peak times and as low as ten licenses during downtime without facing upgrade or downgrade issues.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the scalability of Codebeamer as eight or nine because it is a highly scalable solution.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
Running it independently or with a bigger server generally doesn't cause any issues.
From a scale of one to ten, I would rate the stability of Codebeamer as eight to nine because the solution is highly stable.
There were stability issues due to version compatibility.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
If terminology changes, modifications must be done manually or by exporting the document to Word or Excel, which is time-consuming.
There should be more integration tools available.
Codebeamer struggles with some DevOps integrations and lacks AI features for enhanced user assistance.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
Codebeamer is on the expensive side, but it provides ready-made modules for standards like ASPICE and ISO 26262, which might justify the cost for customers looking for those solutions.
Codebeamer is fairly priced against competition.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
Its integration capability is very high, with almost eighty to eighty-five percent of integrations available readily out of the box, minimizing the need for specific integration-related work.
Codebeamer saves on time and resources with its web-based client, eliminating the need to install it on every system.
The requirements management aspect of Codebeamer is critical because it helps various industries, such as automotive or medical devices, to capture requirements based on industry-specific standards and processes.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
codeBeamer ALM is a market-leading Application Lifecycle Management platform. It is holistically integrated, and is packed with features that help you develop better products faster. Scale, monitor, control, and report on your entire development lifecycle conveniently, and comply with safety-critical regulations. Cut development time and costs.
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.
