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

Inflectra SpiraTeam vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

Inflectra and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Inflectra is ranked #21, while OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.2. Inflectra holds a 0.6% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 4.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Inflectra users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
Inflectra SpiraTeam
Read 2 Inflectra SpiraTeam reviews
  • 342 Views
  • 339 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Application Qualit...
Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews
  • 5,181 Views
  • 3,316 Comparison Views
89% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management and Inflectra SpiraTeam compete in project management and application quality assurance. Users find OpenText appealing for its pricing and support, while Inflectra stands out with its comprehensive features.

Features: OpenText offers robust tools for testing and quality assurance, focusing on integration with enterprise environments. It provides scalability and enterprise-grade testing capabilities. Inflectra SpiraTeam includes requirement management, agile practices, and versatile project handling, making it an effective all-in-one solution for diverse needs, covering various aspects of project management.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText is streamlined for large enterprises with integrations for complex environments and steady support. Inflectra allows for easier implementation across architectures, offering responsive customer service that enhances user experience. OpenText focuses on enterprise-scale deployments, while Inflectra provides adaptability for varied organization sizes.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText provides a cost-effective entry with scalable ROI suited for larger deployments, appealing to budget-conscious enterprises. Inflectra requires a higher initial investment but delivers substantial ROI with its extensive feature set, simplifying and accelerating project processes. The distinction lies in OpenText’s budget-friendly options versus Inflectra’s comprehensive offerings with a focus on delivering value.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 869,566 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

Inflectra SpiraTeam
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
21st
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (4th), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Inflectra SpiraTeam is 0.6%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 4.9%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management4.9%
Inflectra SpiraTeam0.6%
Other94.5%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

it_user1241541 - PeerSpot reviewer
Great technical support with excellent integration and a fairly easy initial setup
The integration is really better than it was in the past. The initial setup was pretty simple. Their documentation is excellent. The solution is fast and very accessible. Organization time is free of charge in terms of licensing. This is until you finalize the migration from one tool to the other. That way, we don't need to pay to license two solutions at the same time. The maintenance team doing the support gives you a lot of knowledge. They often have up to ten years of support experience. Those leading the support teams are very knowledgeable. There seems to be very little turnover or team change, which helps retain the knowledge
Read full review
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.
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 initial setup and configuration are straightforward and relatively simple."
"The solution is fast and very accessible."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"From my service provider perspective, the best features of the product are real-time tracking and reporting capabilities, which help with project management by enabling real-time tracking and reporting."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM."
More OpenText Application Quality Management pros
 

Cons

"It would be great if they worked more closely with other solutions. There needs to be better integration with the platform for development purposes."
"They need to continue improving the interface with the third-party options."
"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."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
More OpenText Application Quality Management cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"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."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"The solution is priceed high."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice
report
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
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Performing Arts
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
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...
See all answers
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.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

No data available
OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management
Compared 16% of the time
Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management
Compared 15% of the time
Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management
Compared 13% of the time
Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management
Compared 11% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Application Quality Management
Compared 4% of the time
More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
September 2025
Inflectra SpiraTeam reportDownload Inflectra SpiraTeam product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Application Quality Management
September 2025
OpenText Application Quality Management reportDownload OpenText Application Quality Management product report
 

Also Known As

SpiraTeam
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

Need to manage your entire project lifecycle? From requirements and test cases, to tasks and code SpiraTeam has you covered. Powerful, straightforward, and flexible, SpiraTeam helps you get started fast. With SpiraTeam, manage your tasks and bugs quickly and easily, sync them with your team, and get back to developing. Integrated version control, testing (manual and automated), and customizable reporting, help you track it all.

Inflectra

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?
  • Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
  • Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
  • Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
  • Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
  • Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
  • Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.
What benefits should users look for in reviews?
  • Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
  • Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
  • Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
  • User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
  • Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText
 

Sample Customers

Cenduit, Maas Database Applications, DHHS Tasmania, Rota Yokogawa, ASI Business Solutions, ComputaCenter
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Buyer's Guide
Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management
September 2025
Free Report: Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management
Find out what your peers are saying about Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Inflectra SpiraTeam vs. OpenText Application Quality Management 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.