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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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 (4th)
OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.3%, up from 12.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.6%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.
it_user685080 - PeerSpot reviewer
A powerful platform and strong technical support help us to make the right decisions
We are primarily interested in improving the flexibility to customize parts of the tool. At this point, we feel that the customization is bad. For example, we would like to be able to automatize internal projects. We would like like to see the visibility improved, and want to perform certain tests faster. We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end. This is very important to us. In terms of usability and the interface, a few small improvements can lead to a lot of benefits. The interface is good but can be improved. The section on managing requirements for testing has to be improved. This is an old feature that has not been updated at the same rate as the rest of the tool.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."
"The product can scale."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
 

Cons

"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
863,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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.
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
863,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.