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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 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 Test Management Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 12.6%, up from 12.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 15.8%, up from 11.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Huong Vuong - PeerSpot reviewer
Effective testing and good data management with seamless Excel integration
There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements. For example, only the first user can click 'run' during testing, and subsequent users have to click 'continue manual run', which can create reporting errors. Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"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."
"We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well."
"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."
 

Cons

"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."
"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"It's a perpetual license."
"The solution is priceed high."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
61%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
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?
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the mar...
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray.
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Tricentis qTest needs improvement in its repositories' functionality. Unlike Azure, it does not have repositories to upload scripts. Additionally, it lacks features like task addition and tracking ...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.