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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 2025

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

OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (5th), Quality Management Software (3rd)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.7%, up from 11.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.6%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management12.7%
Tricentis qTest14.6%
Other72.7%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"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 solution is very user-friendly."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"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."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests."
"The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
 

Cons

"Is not very user-friendly."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer."
"It is pricey."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."
"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"The solution was expensive for us."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

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.
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looki...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.