GoCD vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

Thoughtworks and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Thoughtworks is ranked #15 with an average rating of 7.5, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.1. Thoughtworks holds a 0.2% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 5.6% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Thoughtworks users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

GoCD

Read 7 GoCD reviews

128 Views
93 Comparison Views

88% 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

GoCD

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

GoCD and OpenText ALM / Quality Center are competitive in continuous delivery and application lifecycle management. OpenText ALM / Quality Center generally leads with broader features, although GoCD is noted for its user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness.

Features: GoCD offers streamlined continuous delivery pipelines with advanced dependency management and pipeline visibility. Its open-source status and strong UI make it appealing. OpenText ALM / Quality Center provides extensive lifecycle management, from test plans to defect management, integrating with various tools and supporting traceability, which enhances its comprehensive features.

Room for Improvement: GoCD could benefit from more plugins, broader customer support, and enhanced analytics capabilities. OpenText ALM / Quality Center may improve ease of use, reduce deployment complexity, and offer more modern integrations and cost-effective options for smaller businesses.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GoCD simplifies deployment with an easy setup and intuitive interface, albeit with less comprehensive support services. OpenText ALM / Quality Center has a more complex deployment, requiring extensive support but provides broad customer service to assist users throughout implementation.

Pricing and ROI: GoCD is budget-friendly, offering better ROI for smaller projects due to lower costs and ease of access. OpenText ALM / Quality Center, with higher initial costs, offers greater ROI for larger projects needing detailed lifecycle management, justifying its price with robust features.

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

Buyer's Guide

GoCD 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

GoCD

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Build Automation (15th), Release Automation (8th)

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 GoCD is 0.2%, down from 0.2% 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

RajeshReddy

Dev Ops Engineer at Infosys

The UI is colorful, but the user experience must be improved

We can see all the pipelines with a simple search. The UI is colorful. The user experience is very rich. The product is very easy to learn if we know a bit of the basics. If we have someone to show us how to use it, it is very easy.

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

"The most notable aspect is its user interface, which we find to be user-friendly and straightforward for deploying and comprehending pipelines. We have the ability to create multiple pipelines, and in addition to that, the resource consumption is impressive."

"The UI is colorful."

"GoCD's open-source nature is valuable."

"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."

"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."

"The AI and functionality interface are useful."

"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."

"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."

"Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well."

"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."

"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."

"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center pros

Cons

"The documentation really should be improved by including real examples and more setup cases."

"The aspect that requires attention is the user management component. When integrating with BitLabs and authenticating through GitLab, there are specific features we desire. One important feature is the ability to import users directly from GitLab, along with their respective designations, and assign appropriate privileges based on that information. Allocating different privileges to users is a time-consuming process for us."

"It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified."

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."

"It is not a scalable solution."

"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."

"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."

"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."

"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."

"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."

"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an open-source and free tool."

"This is an open-source solution and it is inexpensive."

"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."

"I feel that the licenses are expensive. "

"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."

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

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."

"This is an expensive solution."

"I've never been in the procurement process for it. I don't think it is cheap. Some of the features can be quite expensive."

"The licensing fee is a little expensive."

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

19%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Retailer

12%

Comms Service Provider

Educational Organization

68%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GoCD?

The UI is colorful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GoCD?

The product is free of cost.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GoCD?

One area of product improvement is the access control system. It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be sim...

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

GitLab vs GoCD

Compared 35% of the time

Jenkins vs GoCD

Compared 26% of the time

GitHub Actions vs GoCD

Compared 18% of the time

Tekton vs GoCD

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs GoCD

Compared 10% of the time

More GoCD 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

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

April 2025

Download GoCD product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Download OpenText ALM / Quality Center product report

Also Known As

Adaptive ALM, Thoughtworks Go

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

Overview

GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers businesses a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility. It was designed for continuous delivery and the concepts essential to this practice are built in at the core.

Thoughtworks

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

Ancestry.com, Barclay Card, AutoTrader, BT Financial Group, Gamesys, Nike, Vodafone, Haufe Lexware, Medidata, Hoovers

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

Buyer's Guide

GoCD vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

April 2025

Free Report: GoCD vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GoCD 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.