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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs PractiTest vs Zephyr Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 8.2%, down from 12.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PractiTest is 2.9%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zephyr Enterprise is 5.7%, down from 8.2% 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 Management8.2%
Zephyr Enterprise5.7%
PractiTest2.9%
Other83.2%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

GS
Partner at IS Nordic AS
Manages multiple releases seamlessly
We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.
DC
Test Team Lead at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat
It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.
JM
Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Integration with tool streamlines test management but needs better exporting options
I use it for test management within Jira This tool boasts an incredibly user-friendly interface that integrates seamlessly with other Jira tools. I particularly appreciate its intuitive features for designing test plans, creating test cases, and executing test cycles. Some areas for improvement,…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The integration with UFT is nice."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy."
"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."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
 

Cons

"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern."
"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."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
"It's difficult to export the test cases in Zephyr, especially with screenshots or attachments, making sharing test cases not very easy."
"Security needs improvement to protect customer information better."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"We faced some errors while uploading the test cases."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"We have a lot of automation for our products, and we require a utility for its integration with automation. Currently, we have to write this utility ourselves. It would be great if they can provide such a utility."
"The solution is not really stable. Sometimes in the past, some pages wouldn't load due to issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The enterprise pricing and licensing are reasonable."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so less people were able to use it for their projects."
"Compared to the market, the price is high."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"It costs a couple of thousand dollars for a little more than 125 users, per month."
"DFS is more expensive than Zephyr. DFS is around $32 per person, whereas Zephyr is $10 per person. There is a major difference in the price, which is the main reason why we are trying to shift to Zephyr."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Performing Arts
9%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
10%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise162
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
 

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 ...
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 ...
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 track...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Zephyr Enterprise?
Some areas for improvement, include its export capabilities. Exporting test cases, especially those with screenshots ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
No data available
SmartBear Zephyr
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
Hyundai, Fujitsu, Google, David Jones, Burger King, Ingenico, Websense, Dow Jones, Harris, Saab
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Tricentis and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: February 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.