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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
13th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.5%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management5.5%
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)3.7%
Other90.8%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

LasseMikkonen - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at byte
Has supported highly regulated documentation needs but requires a modernized user experience
I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was introduced, it was already somewhat outdated. Even though it is a professional tool, nowadays people expect at least some level of usability from their tools, regardless of how professional the task is. Additionally, if you want to utilize it on a wide scale in an organization, you need to train every person to use it. There is always a threshold for new users to start using it.
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I was satisfied using this product because it has done what it was intended to do."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting of the CPU usage on the dashboard."
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."
"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."
"The most valuable features are the customizability, workflow, and Kanban components."
"It's easy to use."
"The planning feature is rich with Scrum concepts: Sprint, Sprint retrospective, the rules in the Scrum framework."
"It gives me the ease of putting together the requirements, test cases, the release test schedules, and executing the test."
"I highly recommend HPE Quality Center for its simplicity and ease of use whereby Business and Technical teams can see each other's progress and help make better decisions."
"It provides the entire test management suite, right from the initial phase of testing till the delivery."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"Customization is the most valuable feature."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"Very robust API to interface with the tool and you can customize how it is used."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
 

Cons

"I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."
"In the next release, we expect a traceability metrics configuration where we can configure the user stories. We also expect them to improve or simplify the query process."
"The solution is not user-friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"The stability of this solution can be improved."
"The interconnectivity between packages is a major support problem and can be improved."
"The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."
"Licensing model is awful."
"License costs are still staggeringly high."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"I frankly don't recommend Micro Focus solutions. The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now; it does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"The Web UI and the Administration Page need to improve."
"Graphs can be further improved to manage more requirements at a time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."
"IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."
"This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."
"We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."
"The solution is not cheap."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"The solution is priceed high."
"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)."
"The solution was expensive for us."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Government
12%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Performing Arts
9%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise162
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with IBM Rational ALM?
I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was i...
What is your primary use case for IBM Rational ALM?
For companies in heavily regulated industries who are doing product development, IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is a good tool. It helps them create documentation that satisfies auditors.
What advice do you have for others considering IBM Rational ALM?
I would rate IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) eight out of ten overall, but it is of course difficult to tell compared to what. If it is compared to tools for advanced requirements manage...
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...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
 

Also Known As

IBM Engineering Rhapsody, Rational ALM, MKS
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.