No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Application Quality Management vs QMetry Test Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st)
QMetry Test Management
Ranking in Test Management Tools
23rd
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 9.6%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QMetry Test Management is 1.5%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management9.6%
QMetry Test Management1.5%
Other88.9%
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.
VinayKumar17 - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Lead at Graebert India
Helped with agile testing, provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities but visibility of test cases could be improved
QMetry has different aspects. It provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities while running tests. It has a recorder integrated. If you run a test on an application, it will record every aspect of it. For example, if you execute a user scenario, it will record what the user does within the application and generate a script. This can also be used for quick automation. Moreover, if we have an automation framework, QMetry can integrate with it. QMetry can also handle load testing in web-based applications. We have integrated it with a bug-tracking system, but not for automation. It was not difficult to integrate it. This integration was mainly for reporting purposes, such as creating reports directly from QMetry.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If you want an end to end testing lifecycle product, I think HP is the winner."
"From a testing perspective, it is a great product for system test and delivers everything that you need."
"It’s a great product for managing an end-to-end lifecycle process."
"Using Quality Center as one tool helped us to track just one tool from beginning to end."
"Entering requirements and mapping of requirements with test cases, writing and execution of test cases and reporting defects, and generating customized reports are valuable features."
"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."
"My clients were able to implement an end-to-end process for software testing."
"QC has been invaluable in the past for documenting our testing process, especially when needed for audits."
"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."
 

Cons

"I've faced a couple of bugs in the product whereby we were not able to open attachments on a particular ticket."
"The web client doesn't match the quality of the rest of the features of this solution."
"Setup and upgrades are complex. Probably one of my biggest issues with the product is that it's so complex and hard to do."
"Its pricing does need to improve."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"One issue I have faced was that while I was importing test cases from Excel to Quality Center, it was not asking to check out the test cases but instead it would overwrite the default test cases and create a new version for it."
"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."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"For me, the visibility could be improved. When executing a test case, you needed to open it separately to read the steps."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"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."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"The solution was expensive for us."
"QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
10%
Performing Arts
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Healthland, Stanford University, Solid Fire, Proteus, Epocrates, Cognifide, Exo, Holmes Corporation, Global Communication, University of Sydney
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: August 2026.
908,858 professionals have used our research since 2012.