OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs QMetry Test Management comparison

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."

"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."

"The independent view of elevated access is good."

"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."

"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."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."

"The best benefit was for new hires. We used to write our test cases in simple English within QMetry, so anyone who knew English could understand them. This helped with training new hires."

"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."

"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."

"Costing is an area that needs improvement."

"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."

"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."

"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 support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."

"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."

"For me, the visibility could be improved. When executing a test case, you needed to open it separately to read the steps."

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."

"The solution was expensive for us."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"It's a perpetual license."

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users."