Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Codebeamer vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
6.9
Codebeamer enhances ROI by streamlining collaboration, reducing workload, and speeding certifications, though ML Ops integration is challenging.
Sentiment score
6.8
Users acknowledge OpenText Application Quality Management's complexity but appreciate its efficiency, cost savings, improved traceability, and enhanced performance.
ROI can manifest through cost savings and increased development speed.
Codebeamer saves time and money for certain use cases, such as AUTOSPICE implementations.
The solution has produced a return on investment.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Codebeamer offers prompt customer service with email and chat support, though hotline and Chinese documentation are desired.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText Application Quality Management's service varies; some experience responsiveness and satisfaction, while others note delays and inconsistencies.
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.
I am mostly happy with the technical support from OpenText ALM _ Quality Center.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Codebeamer's scalability is praised for reliable performance on multiple platforms with suggestions for improved documentation and adaptability.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText Application Quality Management is scalable yet may face licensing and custom workflow challenges in large-scale deployments.
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.
It should come with documentation that is accessible for users, especially for newcomers who might not have any prior knowledge.
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.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Codebeamer is highly rated for stability, with minor issues that are mostly manageable and rare, averaging 8-9/10.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Application Quality Management is stable with minimal downtime; updates improve glitches, yet infrastructure occasionally impacts performance.
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.
 

Room For Improvement

Codebeamer needs improved usability, intuitive UI, multilingual support, better integration, simpler setup, enhanced analytics, and real-time reporting.
OpenText Application Quality Management needs improved integration, UI, reporting, reduced cost, and enhanced usability for better performance and flexibility.
Older versions of PDM Windchill face compatibility issues with newer versions of Codebeamer, requiring users to downgrade Codebeamer to establish integration.
For a client with a medium configuration server, Codebeamer did not work initially until the system was upgraded.
There should be more integration tools available.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
 

Setup Cost

Codebeamer ALM offers competitive pricing and robust features, making it appealing for compliance with standards like ASPICE and ISO 26262.
OpenText Application Quality Management’s pricing is high, suited for large enterprises, with flexible options and economical cloud solutions available.
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.
 

Valuable Features

Codebeamer offers comprehensive traceability, customizable metrics, and integration prowess, supporting diverse industries with efficient project management and Agile methodologies.
OpenText ALM Quality Management offers robust reporting, flexible management, integrations, and real-time updates, enhancing efficiency and coordination.
Codebeamer saves on time and resources with its web-based client, eliminating the need to install it on every system.
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.
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.
 

Categories and Ranking

Codebeamer
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Codebeamer is 9.5%, up from 6.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.4%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

SHRINIVAS ALAGERI - PeerSpot reviewer
Built-in project management modules simplify processes while compatibility improvements are needed
Codebeamer could improve its customization capabilities and integration options. For instance, older versions of PDM Windchill ( /products/ptc-windchill-reviews ) face compatibility issues with newer versions of Codebeamer, requiring users to downgrade Codebeamer to establish integration. The installation on Linux can be tricky, and backward compatibility needs enhancement. Also, Codebeamer struggles with some DevOps integrations and lacks AI features for enhanced user assistance.
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
32%
Computer Software Company
14%
Healthcare Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about codeBeamer ALM?
The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for codeBeamer ALM?
Codebeamer is fairly priced against competition. Customers prefer it due to its pricing, scalability, features, functionality, and integration with multiple tools. On a scale of one to ten, I would...
What needs improvement with codeBeamer ALM?
There should be more integration tools available. Although Codebeamer has a substantial amount of integration options with multiple tools, new technologies and software constantly emerge. Therefore...
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.
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...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Medtronic, Align Technology, Daimler, Samsung, Harman, Dassault
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Codebeamer vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.