Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo

Top 10 OpenText Application Quality Management Alternatives

Vendor: OpenText
4.0 out of 5
Badge Ranked 1
Leave a review

Top OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to OpenText Application Quality Management based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, and Codebeamer. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. OpenText Application Quality Management surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive test management, seamless integration with development tools, and robust reporting capabilities, ensuring superior software quality and improved collaboration for teams across different stages of the development lifecycle.

OpenText Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with OpenText, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Microsoft Azure DevOps
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management is ideal for large organizations seeking robust customization and data integrity. In comparison, Azure DevOps offers agile environments enhanced by continuous deployment and flexible pricing, appealing to small to medium enterprises with integrated toolsets and strong ROI.
Download Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps. The significant difference in setup expenses may influence budget-conscious decisions for businesses evaluating these application management solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps. The significant difference in setup expenses may influence budget-conscious decisions for businesses evaluating these application management solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Jira
4.1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Jira
4.1 out of 5
Jira is ideal for Agile teams needing customizable workflows and extensive plugin support, while OpenText Application Quality Management excels in handling complex enterprise environments with robust test management features. In comparison, OpenText prioritizes comprehensive test solutions, whereas Jira emphasizes flexibility and integration capabilities.
Download Jira vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
Jira offers a more cost-effective setup experience compared to OpenText Application Quality Management, which tends to have a higher setup cost, impacting those on a tighter budget.
View comparison
Pricing
Jira offers a more cost-effective setup experience compared to OpenText Application Quality Management, which tends to have a higher setup cost, impacting those on a tighter budget.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Codebeamer
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Codebeamer
3.9 out of 5
OpenText offers robust traceability and customizable features, ideal for large organizations needing strong integration capabilities. In comparison, Codebeamer provides flexible licensing and scalability, appealing to companies looking for seamless Jira integrations and adaptable workflow management.
Download Codebeamer vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
OpenText Application Quality Management presents a straightforward setup cost, whereas Codebeamer features a more complex initial pricing structure. These differences highlight the contrast in initial investment requirements between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management presents a straightforward setup cost, whereas Codebeamer features a more complex initial pricing structure. These differences highlight the contrast in initial investment requirements between the two solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Polarion ALM
3.9 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Polarion ALM
3.9 out of 5
OpenText ALM supports extensive traceability, offering web-based access and scalable customization suited for large organizations. In comparison, Polarion ALM provides superior document control and integration flexibility, appealing to those valuing robust features and real-time collaboration in complex environments.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Polarion ALM, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment option. Polarion ALM is noted for its lower pricing, while OpenText justifies its price with additional premium features.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Polarion ALM, which offers a more budget-friendly initial investment option. Polarion ALM is noted for its lower pricing, while OpenText justifies its price with additional premium features.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Jama Connect
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Jama Connect
3.8 out of 5
Jama Connect excels with requirements traceability and collaboration, offering a cost-effective solution with easy deployment and responsive support. In comparison, OpenText Application Quality Management provides extensive testing and integration features, requiring technical expertise but offering comprehensive quality management and significant ROI.
Download Jama Connect vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
Jama Connect typically has lower setup costs, making it potentially more accessible for smaller teams, while OpenText Application Quality Management may involve higher initial expenses but offers a robust feature set for larger enterprises.
View comparison
Pricing
Jama Connect typically has lower setup costs, making it potentially more accessible for smaller teams, while OpenText Application Quality Management may involve higher initial expenses but offers a robust feature set for larger enterprises.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
TFS
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
TFS
4.0 out of 5
TFS excels in seamless integration with Microsoft environments, offering agile usability and strong project management. In comparison, OpenText provides extensive lifecycle management with centralized testing but may appear less intuitive, appealing to enterprises with complex testing needs despite its high cost.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. TFS Report
TFS has a competitive initial setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management often incurs higher upfront expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
TFS has a competitive initial setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management often incurs higher upfront expenses.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Rally Software
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Rally Software
4.0 out of 5
OpenText offers extensive customization and integration with automation tools for lifecycle management, appealing to large organizations. In comparison, Rally Software's strong artifact linking and scrum adherence suit Agile teams. Each solution addresses specific organizational needs, from robust traceability to Agile project support.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Rally Software Report
OpenText Application Quality Management requires a considerable setup investment, whereas Rally Software presents a more budget-friendly initial cost option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management requires a considerable setup investment, whereas Rally Software presents a more budget-friendly initial cost option.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Tricentis qTest
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Tricentis qTest
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management offers robust API integration suitable for large-scale enterprises, while Tricentis qTest provides agile-friendly tracking and JIRA integration. In comparison, Tricentis qTest ensures quicker service and flexible licensing, contrasting with OpenText's higher costs and slower support.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Tricentis qTest Report
OpenText Application Quality Management features simple setup costs, while Tricentis qTest offers a more flexible pricing model to accommodate different budgets and needs, highlighting distinct approaches in initial investment requirements between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management features simple setup costs, while Tricentis qTest offers a more flexible pricing model to accommodate different budgets and needs, highlighting distinct approaches in initial investment requirements between the two solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)
3.6 out of 5
IBM ELM appeals with its extensive integrations for full project transparency, aiding in streamlined team coordination. In comparison, OpenText focuses on exceptional test management and risk-based quality management, preferred by those focusing on robust testing capabilities and quality-centric projects.
Download IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) has a setup cost that may require considerable upfront investment, whereas OpenText Application Quality Management offers a simpler initial cost structure. IBM focuses on comprehensive lifecycle solutions, while OpenText emphasizes streamlined ...
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) has a setup cost that may require considerable upfront investment, whereas OpenText Application Quality Management offers a simpler initial cost structure. IBM focuses on comprehensive lifecycle solutions, while OpenText emphasizes streamlined ...
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
TestRail
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
TestRail
4.0 out of 5
TestRail is valued for its accessibility and affordability, ideal for smaller teams. In comparison, OpenText Application Quality Management, with its comprehensive features, suits large enterprises despite higher costs. TestRail eases integration and use, while OpenText focuses on advanced functionality and integration potential.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. TestRail Report
OpenText Application Quality Management setup costs are higher compared to TestRail, which offers a more cost-effective setup. This difference highlights the varying budget considerations between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management setup costs are higher compared to TestRail, which offers a more cost-effective setup. This difference highlights the varying budget considerations between the two solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Helix ALM
3.2 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Helix ALM
3.2 out of 5
Helix ALM offers cost-effectiveness with strong integration capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Application Quality Management provides a rich feature set ideal for complex testing environments. Helix ALM caters to cost-sensitive teams, while OpenText suits enterprises needing detailed testing and robust assurance tools.
Download Helix ALM vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
Helix ALM requires a moderate setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management entails a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Helix ALM requires a moderate setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management entails a higher initial investment.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Panaya Test Dynamix
4.3 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management excels in integration and analytics, leading in automation tools. In comparison, Panaya Test Dynamix's cloud capabilities enhance risk management and adaptability. OpenText's customization is extensive, while Panaya ensures faster deployment, justifying higher costs with streamlined testing efficiencies.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Panaya Test Dynamix Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher initial setup cost, whereas Panaya Test Dynamix offers a more budget-friendly setup. The notable difference in setup costs might influence budget-conscious decisions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher initial setup cost, whereas Panaya Test Dynamix offers a more budget-friendly setup. The notable difference in setup costs might influence budget-conscious decisions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Zephyr Enterprise
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Zephyr Enterprise
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management appeals with robust test management and automation features, competitive pricing, and straightforward deployment. In comparison, Zephyr Enterprise offers strong integration capabilities, real-time agile support, and advanced features, making it ideal for those prioritizing customizable deployment despite higher initial costs.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Zephyr Enterprise Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has a moderate setup cost, while Zephyr Enterprise presents a lower initial investment. This cost difference underscores Zephyr's affordability compared to OpenText, highlighting their distinct financial positioning.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a moderate setup cost, while Zephyr Enterprise presents a lower initial investment. This cost difference underscores Zephyr's affordability compared to OpenText, highlighting their distinct financial positioning.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Planview AgilePlace
4.5 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management excels in test management and quality assurance with integration capabilities appealing to those needing robust quality control. In comparison, Planview AgilePlace offers superior Kanban-based project management, drawing tech buyers seeking flexible workflows and simplified deployment.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Planview AgilePlace Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has higher setup costs compared to Planview AgilePlace, which offers a more budget-friendly implementation option.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has higher setup costs compared to Planview AgilePlace, which offers a more budget-friendly implementation option.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Visual Studio Test Professional
4.2 out of 5
Visual Studio Test Professional excels in integration with Microsoft tools and ease of use for code testing. In comparison, OpenText Application Quality Management attracts enterprises with customization and extensive traceability despite higher cost and setup complexity, appealing to those needing comprehensive management capabilities.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Visual Studio Test Professional Report
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a straightforward setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management's setup cost involves more complexity, highlighting a key difference in initial deployment between these two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a straightforward setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management's setup cost involves more complexity, highlighting a key difference in initial deployment between these two solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Atlassian ALM
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Atlassian ALM
3.8 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management offers feature-rich solutions for diverse project needs. In comparison, Atlassian ALM is gaining traction for its affordability and robust features. OpenText suits complex projects, while Atlassian appeals to cost-conscious buyers seeking agile project management.
Download Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
OpenText Application Quality Management typically involves higher initial setup costs compared to Atlassian ALM, which is more budget-friendly for initial implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management typically involves higher initial setup costs compared to Atlassian ALM, which is more budget-friendly for initial implementation.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
PractiTest
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
PractiTest
4.4 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management is suited for enterprises with its robust data management and integration capabilities. In comparison, PractiTest attracts those who need agile-focused features and seamless third-party tool integration, ideal for dynamic environments. Tech buyers might prefer OpenText for stability or PractiTest for agile adaptability.
Download OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest Report
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost, while PractiTest offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The difference in setup costs highlights the variation in initial investment between the two software solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost, while PractiTest offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The difference in setup costs highlights the variation in initial investment between the two software solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
IBM Engineering Test Management
3.8 out of 5
IBM Engineering Test Management excels in deployment flexibility and cost-effectiveness with strong test planning capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Application Quality Management offers superior integration and analytics, making it appealing for enterprises seeking extensive features and personalized support despite higher initial costs.
Download IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
IBM Engineering Test Management incurs a moderate initial setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management presents a slightly higher upfront expense, highlighting distinct financial considerations for businesses prioritizing budget versus comprehensive quality management capab...
View comparison
Pricing
IBM Engineering Test Management incurs a moderate initial setup cost, while OpenText Application Quality Management presents a slightly higher upfront expense, highlighting distinct financial considerations for businesses prioritizing budget versus comprehensive quality management capab...
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
ConformIQ Creator
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
ConformIQ Creator
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management excels in integration options and comprehensive test management. In comparison, ConformIQ Creator offers superior automation features and cost-efficiency, appealing to those prioritizing advanced tools and quick ROI. Each solution presents distinct advantages suited to different organizational needs.
Download ConformIQ Creator vs. OpenText Application Quality Management Report
OpenText Application Quality Management requires a higher setup cost, while ConformIQ Creator offers a more cost-effective setup. These pricing differences highlight OpenText's robust tools versus ConformIQ's budget-friendly positioning.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management requires a higher setup cost, while ConformIQ Creator offers a more cost-effective setup. These pricing differences highlight OpenText's robust tools versus ConformIQ's budget-friendly positioning.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Cognizant ADPART
1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management excels in customer support and competitive pricing, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Cognizant ADPART offers advanced features and higher ROI potential, making it attractive for those seeking automation and integration flexibility for large-scale projects.
OpenText Application Quality Management offers a straightforward setup at a moderate cost, while Cognizant ADPART involves a more complex installation with potentially higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management offers a straightforward setup at a moderate cost, while Cognizant ADPART involves a more complex installation with potentially higher initial expenses.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Tricentis LiveCompare
1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management excels in broad integration with strong project management features. In comparison, Tricentis LiveCompare's advanced test impact analysis and streamlined deployment with easier setup and superior customer service make it appealing to those seeking efficiency despite higher upfront costs.
OpenText Application Quality Management involves a substantial setup cost, while Tricentis LiveCompare offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting a key financial difference.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management involves a substantial setup cost, while Tricentis LiveCompare offers a more budget-friendly initial setup, highlighting a key financial difference.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Kovair Intelligent DevOps
1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management offers robust test management and affordability, appealing to those prioritizing cost and support. In comparison, Kovair Intelligent DevOps offers integrated tools and flexible deployment, attracting buyers seeking enhanced collaboration and long-term productivity in a seamless DevOps environment.
OpenText Application Quality Management has low initial setup costs, while Kovair Intelligent DevOps presents higher setup expenses, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has low initial setup costs, while Kovair Intelligent DevOps presents higher setup expenses, highlighting a significant cost difference between the two solutions.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
QMetry Test Management
3.0 out of 5
OpenText emphasizes integration with development tools, ideal for detailed test planning. In comparison, QMetry focuses on robust automation and analytics, suitable for organizations prioritizing scalability. OpenText's pricing appeals to budget-conscious buyers, while QMetry offers long-term value through automation efficiency.
OpenText Application Quality Management incurs a high setup cost, while QMetry Test Management offers a budget-friendly setup. The difference in initial investment is significant, making QMetry a more cost-effective option for those concerned with initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management incurs a high setup cost, while QMetry Test Management offers a budget-friendly setup. The difference in initial investment is significant, making QMetry a more cost-effective option for those concerned with initial expenses.
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management Logo
Turnkey Solutions cFactory
1 out of 5
OpenText Application Quality Management offers robust test management, extensive reporting, and multi-platform integration. In comparison, Turnkey Solutions cFactory excels in automation and CI/CD integration. OpenText has higher initial costs but promises long-term ROI, while cFactory provides a faster ROI with lower entry costs.
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Turnkey Solutions cFactory, which offers a more budget-friendly option. The distinct pricing reflects differing feature sets and market targets.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Application Quality Management has a higher setup cost compared to Turnkey Solutions cFactory, which offers a more budget-friendly option. The distinct pricing reflects differing feature sets and market targets.

Related categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Test Management Tools
Quality Management Software