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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Original Software Qualify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 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 Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (4th), Test Management Tools (1st)
Original Software Qualify
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
42nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 4.9%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Original Software Qualify is 0.4%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management4.9%
Original Software Qualify0.4%
Other94.7%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

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.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"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."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
 

Cons

"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"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."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"Is not very user-friendly."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."
"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."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Performing Arts
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
No data available
 

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 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...
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 tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
Qualify
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: September 2025.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.