Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025
OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText ALM Octane both compete in the application lifecycle management category. OpenText ALM Octane may have the upper hand due to its modern architecture and enhanced support for Agile and DevOps environments.
Features: OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers extensive customization and integration capabilities. It provides unlimited storage for testing artifacts, enabling advanced traceability across testing stages. OpenText ALM Octane excels with Agile and DevOps support, robust CI/CD pipeline integration, and enhanced reporting features, making it adaptable across various methodologies.
Room for Improvement: OpenText ALM / Quality Center users report high licensing costs, complex project tracking, and a dated UI, along with limited browser compatibility. Improvements in traceability and reporting are necessary. OpenText ALM Octane needs better integration, native migration features, and enhanced reporting tools, with a more favorable pricing model.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both products offer on-premises, cloud, and hybrid deployment options. OpenText ALM / Quality Center customer service is responsive but can be slow, while OpenText ALM Octane is noted for its quick technical support, benefiting from its modern architecture and cloud integrations.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText ALM / Quality Center is seen as costly, with high licensing and maintenance costs, justified by its features and integrations for large enterprises. OpenText ALM Octane is also costly, but its Agile and DevOps integration features justify the investment, demonstrating good ROI by enhancing test management efficiency.
