We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Panaya Test Dynamix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"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."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"It is easy for business users to use who are not familiar with testing tools."
"The solution helps with recording and documentation."
"The test repository to follow the test progress is most valuable because we can easily create and manage a huge number of test scripts. We can copy and paste, replicate, and drag and drop many tests scripts. We can create test scripts en masse. When you have a high volume of tests, the tool is quite useful. It works well when you want to manage a lot of tests, such as you have 1,000 or more test scripts."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios and as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary."
"The initial setup was not complex and the product itself is very easy to configure and use."
"Provides better monitoring for testing campaigns and business process testing."
"Test migration from HPE are done automatically. We can extract our tests from HPE, and they convert it into the Panaya format."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"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."
"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."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories and we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we have a network connection."
"The setup of Panaya Recorder is a bit complex. Panaya is a SaaS application, but you need to install some components on your computer. You need to set up your computer to allow Panaya Recorder to work. There are five or six things to do each time you install Panaya for any user. If you miss something, Panaya Recorder doesn't work. So, it is complex to install."
"Support is reactive and in English only."
"Nothing is automatic."
"They provide options for custom fields or tabs, but customization of workflows would be great."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while Panaya Test Dynamix is ranked 11th in Test Management Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Panaya Test Dynamix is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Panaya Test Dynamix writes "More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Panaya Test Dynamix is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Worksoft Certify, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.
