We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TestRail based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The independent view of elevated access is good."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"The most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"You don't need to follow complex procedures to create a test run, test case, etc."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the UI. The structure of test cases is easy to understand."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The most valuable features are the flexibility, ease of use for writing new test cases, the test plans, and the composition."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"The QA needs improvement."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"The test suite management has room for improvement as well as better reporting."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"Reporting could be more flexible regarding repeating reports."
"There are a number of improvements that have been requested. While I don't have a list of these requests available, many can be found on Gurock's forum."
"I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT. Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited. The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application."
"It would be useful if it had its own issue management system. At the moment, it's purely a test management tool and you have to link to a defect management tool, like JIRA. It would be useful if there was an option to use its own defect management tool so that it's integrated and not two separate tools."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while TestRail is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while TestRail is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Polarion ALM, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest, TFS, Tricentis Tosca and QMetry Test Management. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TestRail report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
