Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is #2 ranked solution in top Quality Management Tools and #7 ranked solution in top Application Lifecycle Management Suites. PeerSpot users give Micro Focus ALM Quality Center an average rating of 6.6 out of 10. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most commonly compared to Micro Focus ALM Octane: Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs Micro Focus ALM Octane. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 73% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 20% of all views.
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Buyer's Guide

Download the Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

Micro Focus ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass to govern software quality and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes. Designed for complex multi-application environments, organizations can achieve high efficiency in their testing and measure quality with a requirements-driven and risk-based testing approach. Advanced reporting provides a complete view across all releases to gain new insights and make informed decisions. With numerous deployment options, open integrations with common tools and strong data controls, ALM/Quality Center is a perfect choice for enterprises that need to enforce standards, ensure compliance and adapt to changing tools.

Learn more:

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center was previously known as HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Video

Archived Micro Focus ALM Quality Center Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Leon Van Niekerk - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Testing at Pick n Pay
Real User
Makes it easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We use all the major modules in ALM Quality Center. From the releases and management portion, we use the requirements, and we create our releases. We create requirements. We link our test spaces to these requirements and we schedule the execution in the test lab. Then we capture our results in Quality Center and we follow the management process that is not only for manual testing. 

We also have quite extensive automated testing in our environment with some of the other Micro Focus products. They are all integrated into Quality Center, like the UFT, we use service virtualization, we have RPA and we also use Mobile Center. Quality Center plays a major role in our test artifacts, our execution, and our order tracking, both in manual and automated.

How has it helped my organization?

Quality Center has improved my organization from a traceability and test coverage point of view. We have multiple vendors providing development to my company, Pick n Pay. If we use automation or Sprinter, the tool documents the steps for us as we follow it to the point that we've got a defect, so it's easy to send that information on to third parties so that they can duplicate the defect on their side and then provide us with a fix. 

The other thing is from a regression point of view, with everything documented in Quality Center, it's easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation.

Quality Center's ability to connect all related entities to reflect project status and progress is great. This is the tool that we share with all our project managers so that they can see the progress on their projects, even if it's a project across multiple applications or what it is within our environment. We set it up so they can have an overall view of that specific project. It is a great tool to use in that sense.

The test center is our way of working. It's fully integrated, we have a test strategy that supports the use of ALM Quality Center. That's the only way that we track progress on projects. We don't use Excel or anything like that for creating test cases or anything. We also have an environment where we follow a more agile approach and we've integrated Quality Center into JIRA for user stories and defect tracking. If it's not in Quality Center, it's not happening. If it's not documented in Quality Center, we don't believe it.

I wouldn't necessarily say that in the beginning it reduced the time required for testing but if you start on an application and you had the four-quarter full version of that, reusability is automatically built into the tool. Then if you've documented the test case, you've got it. You can reuse that test case in multiple instances of releases at execution. You don't have to go and rewrite it if you plan correctly. If there's a change to something with the way you've structured in Quality Center it will filter through. So it brings our maintenance down by a lot less. Even on the automation side, it brings the maintenance down a lot less with the way we've structured our modules within Quality Center.

It has reduced it by around 15%. That's without automation, it's straight Quality Center. If you add the automation, in some of our areas like the digital area, it brought it down by about 45%. In some of the other areas by around 50%.

Quality Center enables us to conduct risk-based testing. Testing is always a measured approach in our environment. Depending on when development is finished and when we go live, we will do a risk-based approach to say that if we have a look at the critical requirements or test cases, this is how long it will take us. We then get sign-off from the systems analyst, the project manager, and even the business to say, based on the time we have, we're only going to execute critical test cases, for instance.

I'm not 100% sure if Micro Focus is still investing in the product. If I have a look at the features, not 15.01 because we still have to install that, but previously from Quality Center 11 up to where we are now, there are a few things that have been outstanding for a while that I believe will add value. And they're not really getting to that. So I'm not sure what their road map is. Unfortunately this year, the Micro Focus Universe was canceled in the Netherlands, because I'm sure there they would have shared some of the road maps with us, but I don't think the communication on their road map is clear enough to their customers.

What is most valuable?

The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. We use REST for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without.

From a test execution point of view or the test lab, from an audit requirement, we have internal and external auditors of the major projects that will do an audit on the project to make sure that we follow the right processes and procedures within the TCOE and within our STLC in Pick n Pay. It's easy to give auditors access to Quality Center as a viewer only and they can view everything we've done from test execution and test planning, as Quality Center keeps the audit trail for us.

In terms of its ability to handle a large number of projects and users in our enterprise environment, we have 17 dedicated testers and automation specialists in the test centers and plus or minus another 35 to 45 business users/developers or systems analysts that access the product. From a scalability point of view, we run multiple projects over multiple domains at any given time with everyone that's got access. Quality Center's ability to send out emails when you log defects makes it possible for someone that works over multiple projects to know exactly where to find the defect if they just follow the emails that go out.

We use Quality Center for all of our reporting purposes. We have dashboards that we've created across domains and projects. With all the information already available in Quality Center, it's quite easy to set up all of our reporting. Work management doesn't necessarily want to go into the details of the projects. It's easy for them to just access the dashboards that we create from information in Quality Center, with direct integration to see that. From a traceability point of view, it is a great product.

In terms of the security features, we don't do the LDEF or the active directory integration. We have a stand-alone solution. We can obviously set our own password. We don't enforce password rules at this stage, but going forward with security becoming more important in the company's life, we are going to follow and going to do the active directory integration. We have single sign-on to Quality Center, as it can handle that integration portion into the rest of the Pick n Pay landscape. We don't use SSO.

What needs improvement?

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. 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.

Other smaller things need improvement. If you log a defect, you have the ability to upload attachments, but it will only allow you to add one attachment at a time. If you have ten screenshots, for instance, you have to do it one at a time. You can't go and highlight all ten and upload.

Finally, the biggest problem in our environment, and it's the reason we're not necessarily upgrading our solution every time, is when we do an upgrade or even install a patch, there are always changes to the UI. What it means is that we need to have local admin rights on our machine. The next time we log on, we unload all those components to our machine. Now in an environment like Pick n Pay, where not everyone can have local admin rights, it's quite a mission if we upgrade to go around and get to the 60 to 70 PCs or laptops that are impacted to get the users to log on or get IT support to log in with local admin rights to install the browser portion after an upgrade. There are a few .net downloads that need to happen on the browser side in IE and that takes some time.

Buyer's Guide
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center
September 2022
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.

For how long have I used the solution?

I started using this product when it was still called Mercury Interactive, from 1997.

It's on-prem, hosted in a partner that is doing all our hosting. It's on-prem and we do our own administration.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is great. I can't think of any time in the last three years where we had an issue with the product. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is great. It doesn't matter what the size of your organization is. If your testing area is 5 users or 500 users, this product can definitely scale. Before I joined Pick n Pay, I worked for a company in Kazakhstan and Russia. We used Quality Center across different countries to roll out a big project and at the end, we had a 400-user license to have everyone following the same process when it came to testing.

We have 17 permanent users in Quality Center. They are testers. We have a test manager role. We have automation engineers. We have test analysts, we have senior testers and we have junior testers. We also have systems analysts that we log defects and assign it to them so that they can access the defects module to validate and update the side of the defect. We also integrate Quality Center with JIRA. We have our third-party development happening, where they use JIRA and we use Quality Center, where we can log the defects in Quality Center then via the integration then send it to JIRA. When they update, we get information back on our side so that we are on the same page. For us, Quality Center is the single tool in our environment. Whatever the status of the defect is in Quality Center, that's the status. Whatever the status is of execution of test cases, that's what it is.

In terms of the required maintenance, I have one system administrator for all the products and they're responsible for Quality Center. They make sure when we plan upgrades to do the upgrades, user management, project creation, and integration with the other Micro Focus tools we use. 

Our adoption rate is about 85-90%. There will always be room to grow.

We don't have plans to increase usage. We have plans to increase other things around Quality Center like test coverage, automation, and all of those things, but not necessarily new licenses or additional licenses. We have a base of licenses in our environment. As we get major projects with more resources, we do a rental on additional licenses for a three or six-month period.

How are customer service and support?

I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten. 

Their support is quite good. There will always be room for improvement. I also know the local Micro Focus support in South Africa so it's easy for us to pick up the phone and phone the local support or the engineers in South Africa. The only room for improvement will be if you log a call and it's in a different time zone, sometimes there's a delay over three or four hours, but that's literally the only negative about it.

How was the initial setup?

Even within Pick n Pay it is straightforward to do an upgrade. First, uninstall then install the new product or the new version, and if you keep to the same database server, it will pick up all your information and all the projects and everything you have. I've also been involved in areas where we run it via the load balancer and if you follow the documentation, it's quite easy to set up.

An upgrade does not take more than two hours. The initial setup might be a bit longer, about four hours, depending on if you have access to the right database server, if you have all the correct admin rights on the database server, and things like that. If you follow the steps in the installation guide before you start with the install, and you get that right, or get your users set up correctly on the DBA side, it's not a problem. It can take three to four hours.

What about the implementation team?

We do the installation ourselves. I have a product administrator for all of the Micro Focus products in our environment who is doing all the administrative duties for us on all the Micro Focus products.

Regarding our implementation strategy, it becomes quite complex if you use other Micro Focus products as well. It's not as straightforward as just upgrading Quality Center. We use service virtualization and we use Mobile Center. For us, it's important that we follow the process to make sure that we're on the most recent releases of all products that can integrate. The integration portion of the Micro Focus documentation is quite important to us.

What was our ROI?

We've seen ROI plainly. We can do more projects. It's easier to do the maintenance. It might not be rands or dollars savings, but time-saving is definitely there.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

From a pricing point of view, I believe it is an enterprise tool. If you are an enterprise organization and you're using SAP or Oracle for your ERP systems, for example, the cost around Quality Center is not that expensive. From a licensing and planning point of view, you should have a hybrid between licenses you own and depending on how busy you are at certain stages within projects, do additional rentals just for those periods if need be. That's what we do in our environment, we have a base of 15 licenses. If we have any major projects coming in where we know there are additional developers, we do a rental for licenses for the period of that project. We charge that project for the licenses for that rental.

We do have additional costs apart from standard licensing from our side. Pick n Pay outsources their hardware, so obviously we have costs for the hardware and backup for our hardware partners that do our hosting. We see this as a tier-one application in our environment. We have full disaster recovery capability. There some costs involved from that side.

What other advice do I have?

Depending on your environment, the strong point for me with all of the Micro Focus tools is that it supports multiple applications and multiple development languages. It's easy to use one for everything in your environment. If you have a look at automation, if you have SAP and you have mobile, you can use the same tools. It's the same with Quality Center. It doesn't matter what you want to test, you can use the same tool to support that testing. 

Make sure that you plan the detail correctly and plan it to the sense that you know where you want to end up. Otherwise, maintenance becomes a nightmare on your dispatchers.

I would rate Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Test Specialist at a consultancy with self employed
Real User
Empowers us to do more testing
Pros and Cons
  • "Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
  • "Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is test management, e.g., test executions using UFT combined with Business Process Testing. We do also requirement traceability, where we pull requirements out of a source system, then we link test cases to those requirements in order to have a coverage matrix.

How has it helped my organization?

It empowers us to do more testing. Our testing is being done for customers. 

The solution enables us to conduct risk-based testing. We link this solution to requirements of a certain risk factor. Once it's covered at least one time, it will show us in a report that it has been covered. Most tests are running automatically with UFT, so the check is already there in the automation, and there's no impact to us.

What is most valuable?

The Test Plan feature is the most valuable because of the test execution.

Security is covered. HTTPS works well. There is also support for LDAP over SSL. Those are the most important security features.

Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report. That works fine.

What needs improvement?

Managing multiple projects is possible when you have the full ALM license. However, we have the Quality Center license, which can be managed poorly. This is because you cannot look or report across projects.

We don't use Single Sign-On because this is available from version. Therefore, we do not use it right now. Also, it needs to be tested and we haven't tested it yet. With test automation. If you have Single Sign-On and want to make use of another user, that can be challenging. It is good for normal users to use Single Sign-On. However, it's not really a must at the moment, though it is good that the solution finally supports SSO.

Making Quality Center available to connect to external tools is doable, but it takes some work. With our current version, it is not fit for external entities. Connecting to external entities is easier to work with and report in using the newer versions. However, if you really want to use other tools, I would suggest giving ALM Octane a try.

The defect management module has room for improvement. E.g., for Jira tickets in defect management, they could have a direct link with Jira. However, with Micro Focus Connect, you can set up a link between Jira and Quality Center. 

Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful. 

I want to see Atlassian as part of the ALM solution. ALM Quality Center is more from a waterfall approach where Atlassian has already evolved into more of the DevOps and agile part.

For how long have I used the solution?

I started using Quality Center ALM with version 9.2.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I just engaged with my new customer to do an upgrade. At the moment, it has been stable on all versions of Quality Center. However, I'm quite positive that will room for improvement will be needed shortly after we release the newest version of Quality Center.

Do not wait too long to upgrade. The longer you wait, the harder it gets to upgrade to the latest version with the newest features. Just like buying a car: You do not buy a car, then not go to service.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable in terms of high availability when you add an additional node because it's licensed for ALM. For Quality Center, this makes it less scalable. However, this is the perception from the vendor that the Quality Center addition is not for big enterprise. It's for a corporation, but not for an enterprise. Normally it's for bigger companies: 2000-plus users with over 1000 projects and domains. Then, they need to scale up with additional nodes, which will make it scalable enough for ALM.

How are customer service and technical support?

It very much depends on the support engineer that you get. In the past, I've noticed that some really do not know the tool. Sometimes, I challenge first line of support or can come up with a solution faster than the support, but that's because I've also provided technical support for ALM in the past on the behalf of HPE. I know a bit more than the normal user.

Sometimes the support is very good, and sometimes it's a bit poor. E.g., if you go to the second or third of line support engineers, they really know the product. I've also worked with R&D in the past, and that goes beautifully. 

How was the initial setup?

The installation is quite straightforward. Then, the implementation is based on one project, so it cannot go wrong.  This is for a very quick start. You will need more skilled people in your projects for implementation if you want reporting, traceability between requirement tests and defects, and release management. 

What about the implementation team?

I always see ALM as an enterprise solution, so I don't go for the project implementation. You also need to maintain it. If one project has an issue, it may be very different in another project. There's also an issue when you have a user who is working multiple projects. E.g., where does the user have an issue? From a maintenance perspective, project implementation is not very handy so I always try to treat it as an enterprise solution, not as a project solution.

What was our ROI?

Testing time has decreased for manual execution because tests are being executed with UFT.

ROI is very difficult to say. If you don't test, you don't know how good or poor your quality is, but effective testing always costs money. However, it is very important for your return investment to know the value of your tests. What I've seen until now is that it's not being monitored that much. We have this tool because we need to test and prove the quality of the tests that we have been doing, but there will always be bugs and defects in production.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license.

Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

With IBM Rational Quality Manager, you need to stick to the rough process and first train your end user versus ALM Quality Center's basic features, which are very easy to understand.

What other advice do I have?

Make sure you have your build requirements and which features are important. Are you running projects for DevOps, agile, etc.? Also, make sure that you can evolve your tooling and not stay on the same tooling for years, knowing that your business users grow faster and have different needs.

Micro Focus does invest enough, but most investments are now going towards ALM Octane. I've seen that they are investing in adapters where you can say, "We're going to migrate from ALM.net to ALM Octane," if not entirely, then partially. There will always be projects in ALM.net, and they will keep maintaining ALM.net because there are many customers on it. Customers do need to realize that IT is changing and that you need to modernize as well.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10), though I would rate it less for DevOp/agile.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: SI.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center
September 2022
Learn what your peers think about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sai Kiran - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Speeds up our testing and facilitates consolidation of information for reporting
Pros and Cons
  • "With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We use it as a test management tool where our requirements and everything we need are entered into it and we manage the test cycles. When new products come out, the requirements are gathered and captured. Based on that, the test scripts or test cases are created and uploaded. Eventually, the functional analysts or testers run different test cycles, such as integration, user interface, and user acceptance test cycles. We log the defects with it as well. Based on the metrics, if a product qualifies, it is moved to the next cycle.

How has it helped my organization?

We have seen multiple improvements using this solution. One example is that one of our customers wanted to see the defect numbers in the same grid where test execution happens. We were able to provide that. Whenever a defect was raised for a particular test, the defect number updated automatically in an integrated, single view. That meant we could see the status of that step. If it failed, we could see that the defect number had been assigned to that particular step.

We also have a custom tool that we have created to disconnect a user. Sometimes, a user may lock the test scripts and go for a coffee. Usually, a system administrator would have to be there to disconnect that. But we created a solution where test managers or test leads have an option to use the username and kill the session so that other users can log in and start working. This is one  of the best-practices we have implemented so that the time involved in test execution will be reduced. There are a lot of dollar savings when executing each cycle.

Overall, it has absolutely reduced the time it takes to do testing. Initially it might be very difficult for the users to execute and then update the test script status and the defects. But after two or three days, they are used to the navigation and it can save a lot of time. If we were using Excel or doing things manually, they would need to store the details and pass them on via shared drives. That approach would also make consolidation very difficult and a person would have to collect data to create a report. ALM is an integrated tool from which we can get reports.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the Test Lab, when compared to any other tool.

With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application.

It is also pretty easy when managing multiple projects. We can actually create the domains in the tool, and under the domains we can create a project. Based on that, we can manage things very well without any confusion for the users. They can log in based on the domains and select their respective projects. Most of the equivalent test management tools don't have that option.

The solution is also really secure. It will only open within our network. And in the next version it has access roles and a single sign-on feature where users don't need to log in physically with their usernames and passwords. It automatically takes the authentication and goes. That is a very good feature because we can log in to the laptop and it goes automatically, making it very secure. Because in our version, 12.55, we don't have SSO enabled, we are doing a PoC of version 15, which has this feature.

What needs improvement?

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. They have not given any definite dates, as there are multiple requests from different companies, but they are working on it. We have 14 or 15 of our own columns. So every time they want to validate details of, say, SAP security or something along those lines, they need to drag to the right. They wouldn't need to do that if there were an option to reshuffle and save the view.

I would also like to see them provide a better reporting structure. They have a Business Views Microsoft Excel Add-in that appears as an additional tab in MS Excel. If they could improve that a little more, integrating it better with Excel, it would be very useful for all the stakeholders, helping them see the reports.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for the last six years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very reliable. It is a mature application. It's very rare that there is a crash.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is very good. 

We use it for most of the projects in our organization, with the exception being small projects. Currently, there are no plans for increasing usage.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is very helpful. They provide support 24/7 and they have resolved whatever issues have come up, on time.

How was the initial setup?

I was not involved in the initial setup, but I have been here for six or seven releases, new versions, and their installations. It is a straightforward process. It is not that complex, but we have needed the assistance of Micro Focus at times.

We have dedicated staff for deployment and maintenance of this solution. There are seven of us in the company working with Quality Center. One is a technical admin leader who takes care of Quality Center, and another is a project leader. Under them are project support people who work in shifts, 24/7, and create projects and provide support for users' technical issues.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is not my area, but in general, what I've seen when reading articles is that it is costly. That is the reason most customers are moving to the other solutions, which are much cheaper. That is the opinion of people I have spoken to in other companies.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Quality Center is a mature test management tool, which is used across the industry and, for the Waterfall model, it is the best solution. JIRA is good for Agile testing. Micro Focus has released Octane, but it is costly compared to other solutions, so companies are not opting for it. JIRA has a low licensing cost.

What other advice do I have?

I've worked with multiple tools, when it comes to a Waterfall model of testing, and ALM is the best tool.

The solution enables us to conduct risk based testing but, as a test manager, that kind of testing is only done when there is not enough time for testing the entire solution. That is when we go through the requirements in the ALM Requirements module and see what the most important requirements are that should be tested. Based on that, we mark it as risk-based testing. We create a column and check it as "yes" or "no". Based on that information, it can be filtered and the same test cases will be handed to the Test Lab for testing. That means that the most critical functionality of the solution will be covered. The solution helps segregate, using the requirements, to test scripts.

Micro Focus is investing in the product. It is really good that they are investing in it and that they are releasing new releases. The newest release, currently, is 15, where there are multiple new features. It is useful for our users and, as a company, enterprise-wise, that they further improve the solution.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Lisa Gordon - PeerSpot reviewer
IS Director, ERP PTP Solution Architecture at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Enables us to have a single library where people can reference back as we go through multiple releases
Pros and Cons
  • "Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We started an SAP implementation about four years ago and it was selected as the test management tool at the time.

How has it helped my organization?

Prior to us using Micro Focus for this program, my company had been using a lot of manual testing. So we had to reproduce or find scripts over and over again. Quality Center enables us to have a single library where people can reference back as we go through multiple releases. We are able to bring non-SAP systems into the fold as well and increase their productivity as related to testing and compliance.

What is most valuable?

Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area.

What needs improvement?

It's really customizable, so I don't know if we're using it well enough, but with the way requirements are managed, there's no inherent workflow or statusing native to the application. Reviewed and not reviewed is the standard. I would like to see the ability to manage the requirements a little bit better.

There were multiple modules to the solution so the requirements can map to test scripts but 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.

Having a way to connect requirements to test steps would be helpful.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for four years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very good. We haven't really had any major issues. We do have to go through the VPN just the way we have it set up in our network because we are using it within our network and not on the cloud.

Sometimes when we're in through the VPN, it runs a little bit slower, but I think that's just how all the networks connect. I don't think it's the tool.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It has huge scalability. It's been used for multiple applications that we support from large SAP programs to a smaller system. It can be used as a single release. One of the bigger issues is the licensing approach. They have concurrent usage and it's very expensive. They should offer - and we've asked and they've said no - an enterprise-type license where you're not paying every time you want to bring more people into the solution that you know you're going to go over your license count.

We have to buy more licenses and more maintenance. If we could have at one point an enterprise-type tiered license, that would be more appropriate to be able to scale it up even more. People are moving to DevOps for a little bit more of an Agile approach, as well as that it's free versus the cost of an ALM.

At the peak of the project, we had about 300 people using the license as concurrent users. We had everywhere from testers in India and people offering scripts and executing testing. We also have our business folks doing UAT and our technical teams doing our functional testing. Then we have obviously our quality organization going in and verifying the results. We also have our developers utilizing it for defect resolution. So during testing, a defect can be identified, and then we have a separate type of license that's only for the defect module that the developers go in and they can find a cause and put notes against it. There's the test management team and really the whole program at that point.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have a light maintenance agreement with Micro Focus for the application, but it's primarily for our e-signature capability because that was custom code and we really haven't had any tickets against it, maybe once a year. And we have a certain amount of hours that were allotted. We actually use that for enhancements to our workflows, they help us build that out. We haven't really had any direct needs to go back to Micro Focus for support.

It's a quick turnaround. They have remote access to our environment, they've changed over points of contact on who our support person is seamlessly over the years. They notify us. They let us know and they send us monthly reports on any activity that usually is zeros for them. But when we have needed them, it's a quick turnaround. We've been satisfied.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I've worked with HP Quality Center at a prior job.

How was the initial setup?

I wasn't involved with it when it was first implemented for the program. I've worked on it in past companies, but it was forced to fit into meeting minimum requirements. So now, we're actually in the process of evaluating best practice and integrations with other tools such as Solution Manager and ServiceNow.

What was our ROI?

We haven't calculated ROI but the time it would take to go through paper documentation versus digital is huge. I don't have any quantitative numbers on that. We also were able to enable automated testing using Micro Focuses UFT, which writes back to ALM for results. The time it takes to execute in itself has a return as well, but the time value is really on the UFT. The write back to ALM and to be able to document results in a single location is key.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license.

What other advice do I have?

Make sure you have an ALM administrator, both technical as well as at the project level or at the application level available to support creating templates, doing a lot of the backend technical work administrative. If things do get blocked, you can push things through. So you do need two technical experts on staff to support the application.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that proper training and governance is not really the tool itself. It's how you use it. They pushed it in to satisfy a minimum goal. We utilized Parameters in our test scripts, but the testers then don't utilize them properly and then there's no governance that forces them to do it. Having the structure to support the application the way it's intended is really key.

I would rate it an eight (out of ten). Obviously there's always room for improvement, but it's an overall good tool.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Ashish Yelkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Partner at Verve Square Technologies
Real User
Helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."

What is our primary use case?

We are using it for test management. We have distributed teams in three locations with one location in Portland, which is the newest, and also in India. We have a team of around 150 people (developers plus three testers). We are implementing an order migration legacy system to a new system based on AngularJS 5.0. We also have test automation being implemented on this account using Micro Focus UFT. 

Automation is triggered through ALM. We have the test scripts stored in ALM that are triggered through the execution dashboard. Also, the reports are available on the dashboard. 

We do defect management through ALM, which is the typical use case. The defects are raised in our different locations, then the collaboration between the development leads and testers happen through ALM.

We use the Test Plan module where we have test cases related to all our different releases up until now with a few current releases as well. We use the Test Lab tab to pull test cases from Test Plan and do executions accordingly. We have also created some smoke and sanity testing suites where we pull test cases, then execute them when required during the project phases.

How has it helped my organization?

Any user who accesses a project gets to know what is the latest status on a test case, from a test case writing or test design perspective as well as test execution perspective. Collaboration is very strong. The communication that the tool sends out along with the log which is maintained is locked in the history. This is for any change at the test case level or within any of the components of ALM. The history helps us to understand what went wrong or when has somebody made a change. Therefore, the history log is a very important feature.

From a collaboration perspective, I can send out emails directly from ALM that, at times, get triggered automatically. If you raise a defect, then it automatically triggers to a particular email ID that the defect has been logged in ALM. This helps to get immediate visibility or attention of the development team from a testing team's perspective.

Initially, we used to lose a lot of time in collaboration. If we do this in a very crude way through Microsoft Excel, then there would be a lot of issues related to version control. Like somebody might say, "I've fixed the defect," and the other guy would say, "It is still open." Now, across the team, we have one single source of truth because ALM helps the whole team to understand the exact status.

What is most valuable?

Ease of use is definitely one of the strongest points for ALM. It's a very user-friendly tool and the maturity of processes within ALM are amazing compared to other tools. Their in-built reporting does help with getting ready-made reports from the tool. 

The Test Plan and Test Lab setup helps us a lot when pulling test cases repeatedly from a different perspective. If I want to make a sanity pack, then I can pull test cases from that same library of test cases. I don't have to create them again or copy and paste them. 

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 use the dashboard and have created our own reports. The typical dashboard also helps us a lot to understand test execution progress and the percentage of open defects from a defect perspective. We use the defect aging reports a lot. This saves us lot of time and gives us the right input from the perspective of which defects are aging. Those need to be looked at again and possibly discussed in further detail in the defect triage call about what's the blocker to get them fixed and how we can work in a better way to avoid the defect aging in these manners. 

The vendor is still investing in the product and releasing valuable features. For example, there has been improvements in the overall folder structure. Initially, we just used to have Test Plans and Test Lab. Now, we have the Task Board.

What needs improvement?

Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way.

For how long have I used the solution?

About four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable. We haven't had issues with any sort of stability issues, e.g., no downtime.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have around 4,000 test cases in ALM, so I don't think scalability is an issue.

We have around 150 users. The hierarchy of ALM users is:

  • The admin
  • Process leads, who are using it.
  • At the lowest level, there are data developers and data testers who access ALM.

70% of our people use ALM and the other 30% don't need to be on ALM.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is nice. At times, we have needed to wait. However, this is understandable for a few of the issues as they sometimes can be tricky. I would rate the support function as above average. 

The turnaround time varies with the issue, but they're decent enough. The average time is two days. They provide us local support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have always used different versions of ALM. I did not previously use a different solution before using ALM.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The process was just about our customization, which we do from our end and is admin guided. This took us around a couple of weeks and wasn't cumbersome at all. ALM is a mature product. We could set up how we wanted to upload our test cases, then structure the different parameters or columns the way we wanted them. The process was quite streamlined.

What about the implementation team?

We did have some internal help, but we didn't have a full-time consultant. We didn't have any external help. We used a team of three people (part-time consultants).

What was our ROI?

We definitely feel that it has given us a huge advantage from a collaboration and time savings perspective.

It can reduce the wastage that happens in collaboration activities. The effort has definitely gone down. Effort and collaboration have been reduced by 60 percent.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

At a process level, the maturity within ALM is at the highest level. Now, if I have run the same test case five times within Test Plan, it will gives me a status of that test case based on the last run, whether it passed, failed, or its situation. If I want to know right now from a functionality perspective what functionalities are working for me and which are not, then based on the immediate last run done directly through Test Plan, I can understand that. That's one of its strengths. This is not available in other tools, like TestLink and Jira (we are using both).

Jira has an advantage from agile perspective. For an agile project, it helps to have the dashboard in the way Jira is structured.That's where Jira is pretty useful. We also have three of the defect calls running different ways using Jira. There are a few things from a visual perspective where Jira poses some advantages over in ALM.

TestLink is pretty similar to ALM. It is not really drastically different. It's open source and doesn't have the kind of maturity which ALM has, like the BI page, the history log, or other functions that are present in ALM. It doesn't have that type of strength. However, since it's open source, at times a couple of our clients use it, but I use it very rarely within our projects.

What other advice do I have?

Security is driven by the different user login credentials that are created by the admin. This is pretty typical. In this aspect, all their tools are good.

For risk-based testing, I used to have a different version of ALM that gave me a confidence level. Currently, I don't think our company has bought the version where you implement risk-based testing. However, it does help me to get the required inputs from the tool. Then, I have my own way of going about risk based testing.

I have seen the Single Sign-On. It's nice, but we don't use it in our current project due to a few constraints and a few user experience related issues. Sometimes, people don't want to change and just want to do it the old way. That is why we stopped using it.

I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10) to keep pushing them to include more features.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Ira Mayer - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior SW Quality Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Helped our productivity by reducing the time to do project management and controls
Pros and Cons
  • "I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
  • "Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."

What is our primary use case?

I'm the admin for our organization's Quality Center. I define the guidelines and projects for use. We use also use it for management requirement testing. Though, we are not doing automated tests or defect management right now. 

We can't use the Quality Center for everything because the login is only about the user ID and password. Because of this, we are not using the data in Quality Center for all projects.

It is quite complicated because I have about 200 projects, mostly SAP, and all of them have to work in the same way. I do a lot of reporting and everything has to be more or less the same.

How has it helped my organization?

I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent.

We do a risk-based testing in some parts of tests, especially because the applications are very big so they can't test everything. The control of incidents is normally very good, as they don't want critical defects when we do this.

What is most valuable?

The requirements are the best thing.

The management feature is very important. I also use requirements, tests, and defects.

What needs improvement?

While I'm using a lot of the business reports, these are very complicated.

It is hard to find the traceability from a defect to a requirement. Sometimes, it is very hard to find the evidence in an executed test case. While it's possible, it could be easier. Only these two things have to be improved: the tracking from a defect to requirement and the evidence of testing.

Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used it for 10 years.

With my current company, I started to set up their solution two and a half years ago. It has taken that long to get the solution working because it is a big project.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is okay.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

All users have to report their projects in Quality Center. Previously, it was voluntary to use Quality Center. From September, everybody has to use it in the company.

We have 300 users currently utilizing the solution. This number should increase to 500 or 600 going forward.

How are customer service and technical support?

I don't work with the support of the Quality Center.

I haven't had a lot of contact with Micro Focus to know what they are doing.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we had no application lifecycle management tool, so there was a lack of coordination about requirements and no traceability regarding which requirements had been tested. Sometimes, defects were being reported by email. Now, everything works well, which is a huge improvement for my company.

How was the initial setup?

It is very intuitive and wasn't complex for me. I like to work with it, but there are a lot of new users, and it's very complex for them to understand using Quality Center in the beginning.

We jumped right in and didn't have an implementation strategy.

We had a lot of problems with the new installation.

What about the implementation team?

The implementation team was all internal: two other people and myself.

I started with the testing. Then, after the launch, I was working with the requirements and defects. Therefore, the deployment was a step-by-step process for quite a long time.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have seen other applications, and I like this application more. We tried SHIELD, Xray, and Confluence. I have also looked at another solution which was more about integrity. However, I am more concerned about requirements management. Other solutions working with integrity and enterprise architect can be very complicated. Though, SHIELD, as a solution, is too simple.

What other advice do I have?

Very quickly, you can work with the solution. Though, there are user in my company in which this solution seems very complex. I would recommend that users take the courses offered to them. In addition to getting the manual, reading, and learning it, users have to try the solution, e.g., I create a playground for them to try out the solution for a few hours. Here they can try out the requirements and play with it. 

If you think logically and practically when using the solution, it works fine.

From the start, visualize the application. The initial tree on how to start is very important.

We would like to implement Single Sign-On, but there is a problem with it in my company. All different solutions have to be signed on individually in our company. Right now, we are trying to work with Oktana, but Oktana won't go into production in our company if there isn't a possibility of another login.

In the last release, there was nothing really new nor useful.

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Test Manager at a construction company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Allowed us to trace requirements and their impact across multiple projects
Pros and Cons
  • "Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We used it for multiple platforms in our organization. The IT platform was divided into groups, into towers, and each tower was using it. I used it for multiple towers together. I was managing it for my individual tower. But if there was a roll-out of the regression plan and we needed to see how many would be impacted, we were pulling out the ALM regression part from each and every tower and building it into one.

How has it helped my organization?

It's an effective test management tool. When you have to map all the requirements, and need requirement traceability, it reduces test management time. Compared to managing testing in Excel, it reduces it by 50 percent.

What is most valuable?

Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape.

I was managing multiple landscapes. We were adding requirements in ALM itself and then mapping those requirements across the landscape. If one requirement was distributed across a project, it was mapped with ALM so that we could trace this particular requirement and see what projects were impacted and what test cases were tested regarding it. ALM provided complete traceability.

In terms of the solution's security features and compliance, I didn't come across any concerns. I checked the ALM SaaS version for the project I'm working on in my current organization as well, and I haven't felt there are any security concerns regarding ALM.

I used ALM Quality Center in roles from test manager to test director and it was the best tool in each role. It was easy to handle, and we could map everything, starting from requirements, and see everything with the test reports. It's a tool for everyone, and one which is very easy for everyone to adopt. Creating test plans, doing test setup, and set up of folders was very easy. The tool was quite flexible. It might take a maximum of one day to set up a whole project. 

I never faced any issues in integrating this test management tool with other tools for test automation. I worked with UFT and another in-house tool as well. We were able to manage and we were able to connect the applications very easily. The auto-run options were pretty good.

What 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. So for Agile, I've never used it and I'm not sure how good it is. There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects. When I was trying to manage both Agile and projects with ALM, I had to pick up my defects and reinsert them in ALM. There was no integration that I was able to find for that, although that was about a year ago.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have used Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for seven to eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is quite good. Their upgrades are quite good. There are formal updates. I was happy with that.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It was utilized, effectively, across the landscape, across our technologies, and across projects. It was widely used.

My previous company was a pretty big organization and had 200 to 300 users of the solution. It was purely for the technical teams, for people like architects, testers, project managers, and test managers. We distributed it with the access required by each. The defect managers and architects only had traceability. The testing teams had full access. Test manager had planning and reporting access.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

When you have to ramp up your licenses and you have to scale it up, it's quite a costly product. You have to keep an eye on how many people are using it. You can't just give access to users who are only there to take on excess work and who are not using it. It is not a very economical solution.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

At that time, I was also looking at JIRA, participating in a comparison between ALM and JIRA. What I was looking at was how effective JIRA is for test management versus ALM.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Vishwa-Reddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Eng Senior Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Enables us to run both automated and manual testing in parallel
Pros and Cons
  • "It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
  • "One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."

What is our primary use case?

In our organization, the manual testing guys write manual test cases through Excel. Then they import them to ALM. They'll move in all the details. Based on that, the automation team will take care of developing the scripts through Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing and they'll add the script into the test plan.

Once the lead has approved the test plan he will move all the test cases into the test labs. If any defect is found in new releases, it is logged in the defects column.

How has it helped my organization?

There is a parallel running of automated and manual testing. Based on that, we are able to help the quality of the applications. At an earlier stage, to catch the defects, we introduced API calls and GUI-based. Both are used to catch defects. It helps the guys to understand, quite easily, what the issues are. It is pretty useful for our organization in following the cycle method.

It has reduced the time required for testing. It makes things easy. Everything is already set up, once you have done the requirement map, and it quickens the release cycle. After QA, once it is moved into the build, we'll run both automated and manual in parallel. The automated will be completed within one day and the functional team will generally take three days and they'll know in that time if anything is there or not. Based on that, the business will plan the release.

What is most valuable?

All the features are valuable. Initially, you can take the response to the requirements and then move into the test plans, test lab, and defect creation. All of these are valuable functions.

Every tab is useful for software testing, but based on some of the requirements for defect creation purposes, we have developed a few of our own tabs. For example, there is a severity/priority module. There we have developed a module or submodule that shows who the business owner is and who the developer is. We also developed tabs so that, when creating defects and root cause, we know to whom it should be reported, so that things are easy to identify.

It is easy for everybody to understand. We can create whatever notes are required. Based on roles we can also make it familiar for business people, so they see what they need to see. That is true for engineers and managers as well. That makes it easy for everyone and gives them access to what they need. It makes things easier.

ALM is user-friendly for everyone. Someone who doesn't know it can learn it quickly, within 20 minutes. At the admin level it might take a little bit more time, since experience is required, but at the user level not much experience is required. It speeds up the validations.

It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched. And we can immediately stop upcoming releases if any vulnerability is found in the application.

What needs improvement?

One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome. With advanced IE settings, advanced security settings, only if everything is enabled will ALM open. ALM will not launch any of the latest browsers, including Chrome. I'm not sure if this is true for the latest versions of ALM. I'm talking about the older versions. We are not using the latest version in this organization.

It should be launched for all of the latest browsers. If we could test with mobile, it would be better. We need to launch all the browsers to run the UFT scripts. There is a significant UFT mechanism that requires syncing with ALM to run with multiple browsers. 

I would also like to see API calls and AI-based algorithms to run things in an easier manner.

We have also have a minor issue, sometimes, where we are unable to launch the site. There is a back-end server and the allocation space is over what it can handle. We request the server team to clear the server.

Also, sometimes we need to write a query for downloading the execution app. That can be a little bit tricky. It would be better if there were no need to write it and we could simply download it.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have more than five years of experience using ALM Quality Center. I am an admin-level user in ALM.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is scalable.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously we were using Excel. Then the organization moved the entire thing into the ALM. It is now the central point for whatever needs testing.

How was the initial setup?

When we do a version upgrade, we first take a backup of whatever data is in ALM and move it to a Linux server. There is setup guidance for the installation process. Once we install it, then we'll move the existing data back. 

One good thing in ALM is that there is a predefined template when creating the projects. We just copy that template and everything comes together. Whatever the mandatory requirements are will be there with all the tabs. And, if required based on the business needs and the project, we will create new tabs with whatever fields are needed. That is good.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing determines the number of users we can enable in a particular project. There is a full license and a defect license. Full licenses are used by a few of the guys at our level. We'll give a defect license to the development team only, to access whatever defects there are, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly.

We did not buy our ALM licenses directly from Micro Focus. We bought them from SAP, which is another solution we are using. We depend on SAP when it comes to whatever challenges come up. The source for us is SAP.

We do have a pricing concern. If we go directly to Micro Focus, they'll sell it at a higher price. If we go to some other vendor, they sell it at a lower price. My manager then says, "Okay, it's the same tool. Why do we need to buy it directly? Whatever problems come up, we can resolve them at our end." Of course, we don't know if we'll have one or two problems or not, and that is the reason to go for the higher price. But they went with SAP to buy the license.

What other advice do I have?

ALM will help your business. It will save time. It makes it easy to validate everything in the latest build. It's easier to plan, cycle-wise. That is one advantage. It also makes it easy for the managers to analyze the results and the progress of the test cases. They are able to track things minute-to-minute. You can use the virtual controls to see the reason a particular test has been edited, using check-in and check-out. That is also a good feature.

Along with ALM the business is also moving to JIRA. I don't know exactly what the business strategy is there, but they're moving to JIRA as one of the sources for creating defects. They're also mapping all the requirements to JIRA.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Performance and Automation Testing Squad Lead at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Helps in streamlining our testing process because everyone is using the same standards and capabilities
Pros and Cons
  • "The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
  • "There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for defect management and for test cases. We synchronize it with JIRA for the requirements and the defects side of things.

We're also using it for our UFT script repositories, but that is more than likely going to change, in the next couple of months, as we go across to GitLab. It's just simpler to have all the artifacts for a particular iteration in one place.

Quality Center is cloud-based with a local client.

How has it helped my organization?

The way Quality Center improves our organization is with the traceability and through standardardization. It's about having the test cases all in one place. That's very important for us. It will be even more important once we revive the regression suite in the coming months. It's extremely important to have one source of truth.

It definitely helps in standardizing our testing process and, if utilized properly, it will streamline it because everyone is using the same standards and capabilities. It has helped with that in the past and will in the future as well.

Quality Center also assists with risk-based testing. You can put risk ratings on test cases as you go, and if you do that you know which ones need to be run, for sure. It doesn't have very much smarts around it though, it's just a field that we fill out. It doesn't utilize AI, which some of the tools in the market are purporting they can utilize to determine which test cases need to be run. But I think it's very early days for that yet and I'm exceptionally skeptical about it.

What is most valuable?

The automated scripts give us management control.

Defects are widely used within our organization. 

We've had a little bit of a hiatus on the test-case side of things, because we decentralized the testing team, but that's about to be re-centralized. The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements.

Also, its traceability and visibility features are good when it comes to managing multiple projects, which is how we've got it set up. The reporting was a little bit clunky to start with, but we've built some reporting out of it now as well, to give us a cross-portfolio view of those projects that are using ALM. Each project can do its own thing, to a certain degree. There are some standard fields that we don't bend on, so that we can get the correct reporting out.

There's no problem at all with its ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment. We only ever have up to 60 concurrent users, but the number of users we've got in the database is in excess of 250. We manage it reasonably well, that way. Project-wise, we've got about 40 to 50 projects in there.

The security features are good. They will be better once we get the single sign-on capability with ADFS on ALM 15. We're very keen to get that capability up. We're looking at the implementation process for single sign-on right now. It should be okay. It makes things a lot more convenient for us, particularly as we have a number of contracts users come in. When they go, we've got to manually remove them from ALM at the moment, because it's got its own authentication. Because it's in the cloud, anyone can get to it directly from anywhere. They don't have to come through our network to get to it. That is good in some regards. But it does give me some concerns when people have departed, or when organizations that we've been working with have finished up with it, because we have a separate swipe that we've got to do to remove any users who are no longer working with us.

What needs improvement?

There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky. 

They can also improve on its interoperability with other tools. All tool sets need to evolve in that regard. They need to understand that you don't buy all one color of tool sets these days and that some tools do a job better than others, depending on what it is. If I've got an industry-strength configuration management tool and repository, like GitLab, I'll pull my stuff out of ALM and I'll interface with GitLab from ALM. That interoperability with other tools sets, the standardizing of interfaces, is an area to work on. All of the tools in the industry are the same. You get a new version of JIRA and it no longer works with the likes of ALM, or you get a new version of IBM UrbanCode Deploy and it doesn't work properly and you've got to do a configuration with GitHub or Artifactory or even ALM, for that matter.

The other thing that ALM could do well with is to move away from Internet Explorer. I believe they're doing that with version 15.

For how long have I used the solution?

I go back to Test Director days, Test Director 8. That was around 20 years ago.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability has been fine. If ever we do have problems we're straight on the phone to our customer success manager and he gets onto any issue that we've got, immediately. But it very rarely goes down.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We only use whatever our concurrent is. We run very lean at the bank, very lean. That goes with all of our tooling. We have a concurrent licensing model that is well under the maximum number of users. If we find that we haven't got enough licenses we adjust the time-out so that people are not holding onto licenses unduly.

With Quality Center, for user scalability all we do is get extra licenses. We've never hit any sort of limit on the size of the project.

We've got a number of admin users, a few site admin users; there's one per domain in our model at the moment. They are the super-users who look after everybody within their domain. Within projects, it's up to the different projects or squads to work out whether they need what we call TD admin users in there. There are also defect-owner users. We also have some analyst users and some tester users.

We'll be increasing usage because we've just kicked off our transformation program with a third-party. As a part of the agreement they are using it, so we'll be upping the number of users that we have. And by reestablishing the centralized testing thing, we'll also be ensuring that Quality Center or ALM is used as our tool of choice. We will reestablish the standards that somehow were dropped when we went to Agile.

How are customer service and technical support?

They coordinate it for us but I do have direct access to the tech support guys. Typically, if there's an issue, I'll get on the phone and notify our customer success manager. Either we will already have raised a ticket or he'll raise one for us. Then we'll work through anything that we need to do to get things fixed so we're up and running as quickly as possible. 

There have been some issues around getting any major problem that we've had resolved, although we've had very few major issues. It's just a matter of keeping at it until it's fixed. Having that CSM in place allows that to happen.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before Quality Center the only thing we were using was JIRA. We interface with JIRA. Some teams want to use it for defect tracking. We keep JIRA and ALM in sync using the synchronizer tool that comes standard with it.

JIRA and ALM have different strengths. JIRA and Confluence do Agile planning and management well, and ALM does defect management and test case management and reporting well.

How was the initial setup?

The fact that we've got it in the cloud at the moment, as software as a service, enables us to keep up to date. If it's a back-end or a server-only change, it just gets done. That's the beauty of the arrangement we have with a SaaS or cloud-based version. 

We started using the cloud-based version about four years ago. The setup was very easy and very quick. I did the migration. We had to unload the databases on-premise and FTP them across to the cloud overnight. We did it project-by-project or by groups of projects. Each one of them had its own backup/transmit/reload. They then went through a series of validations and were up and running the next day.

I did it on a project-by-project basis because there was a lot of data that had to go across and be uploaded to the cloud. Once it was up there, I logged on, checked it, and then got the SMEs from the different projects to validate that everything they needed was there.

Having to package up and coordinate clients is, occasionally, difficult, but that's just a project management issue: scheduling things at the right time. Sometimes we have problems and we have to go in and individually blow away components for the product for the client. That's more because of our setup, our configuration on our network, than it is the tool set. We do that with most tools. Occasionally have to rebuild when we've had version upgrades, but not for everybody.

For maintenance there's only two of us, myself and one of the guys that works for me.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

As an end-user, of course I'm going to say that it's too expensive and I want things cheaper, but don't we all?

Aside from the standard licensing fee there are no additional costs. It's set up with a good agreement that runs three-yearly.

What other advice do I have?

Do your homework on it to really understand how it works. I've worked at a number of different organizations that have had Quality Center, Test Director, and ALM. They have all been set up differently. I'm also guilty of having gone in as an external contractor and setting it up the way that I want it to run too. But if the time is taken to set it up properly, you will get strong value from it.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using Quality Center is that, when it's used well, it's an exceptionally powerful tool. When you use all the features of it, when you have things that are standardized and locked, it's a really handy tool in governance around testing and projects. But in an environment where you've got multiple external contractors or vendors coming in, where they all tend to bring their own way of doing things, it's good that it's flexible enough to accommodate that, but at the same time it leaves you with a bit of a mess to clean up afterwards.

It's really about making sure when you do implement it that you understand your process, you understand your workflows, you understand the standards that and the reporting that you want out of it, and you set it up accordingly. If somebody comes in and says, "Oh, I want to know what my defect aging is," you can say, "Well, here's the report that does that," if everything's filled out properly.

I've seen it set up really well in a couple of places, and it was really good to have it set up well because we could get the information out of it when we needed it and we could ensure that things were tested properly.

When it comes to connecting all related entities to reflect project status and progress, we have to do a little bit of tweaking, but we can customize it. We can always do better with the cross-project reporting. But the biggest issue we have is that we need to re-centralize testing to get the standards enforced. At the moment, since we've moved out and become very Agile, we've become very lax as well in being able to keep the likes of test cases — in particular regression suites — up to date. That is one of our reasons for reestablishing a centralized testing team. It's nothing to do with the product. It's just that everybody decided, "Hey, Agile's the way to go," and a lot of people with Agile thought, "Oh, we don't have the formality and the structure and standards around testing," which was not good.

At the moment we're in a bit of a state of flux because we've had the whole Agile movement start to hit us. Unfortunately, that meant that there was a decision to decentralized testing and put it out into the different Agile squads, which in turn meant that there was no standard way of doing things. Now that we're engaging in a transformation program, we need to re-establish that standard way of doing things, because we're working with third-party vendors. We're centralizing, ensuring that things are handed over in the format that we want, ensuring that the third-parties are utilizing ALM as the tool set for their test case repositories, and as the defect management tool as well. Being an industry-wide, and understood, standard tool, it's very easy for us to go to our partners and say, "You've got to use ALM because that's what we're using." We are still going to be Agile, but we'll be doing centralized testing.

I wouldn't say Quality Center has reduced the time required for testing. It's a tool. It supports our testing process. It gives the governance and standards around the testing that's done, but as a tool it doesn't reduce the time for testing. Something like automated testing will reduce the time for testing. However, by association, I suppose it might reduce testing time because it's where we execute our automated scripts from.

We haven't found that Micro Focus is still investing so much in Quality Center and releasing valuable features. They did do a big push to go towards Octane and we trialed that. Because we have multiple best-of-breed tools in the organization, Octane could plug-and-play with a lot of them, but then it became an overhead to be able to manage and maintain. 

With ALM in Australia at least, there's enough support and development going on. I know the APIs into ALM have improved, and they needed to because aspects were pretty clunky. Now that we've got a REST API that we can use, that's a lot better. So they're sort of keeping up.

I would rate Quality Center at about eight out of 10, but I have a testing background. I'm very stingy when it comes to rating things. I don't think I've ever rated anything to 10.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
Meera Surendrababu - PeerSpot reviewer
Meera SurendrababuSenior Business Analyst/Product Manager at Jakala
User

What is the difference between Micro Focus ALM and Micro Focus ALM Octane?

YingLei - PeerSpot reviewer
YingLeiProduct Marketing Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

ALM/Quality Center provides a comprehensive quality management platform including test planning and execution across the application lifecycle, to continually improve and deliver high-quality applications on time and ensure that they meet your business requirements and standards.
ALM Octane provides an integrated DevOps management platform including scaled agile management, continuous quality and delivery optimization.

PeerSpot user
See all 2 comments
Shinu Thulaseedharan - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Quality and Architecture Senior Manager at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Real User
We can look at the status and map it to the requirements to see which of them have been completed end-to-end
Pros and Cons
  • "The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
  • "ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for recording our requirements. We use it for recording our test cases and the data is done within the ALM itself. And, during execution, we use it to update services and to log defects.

How has it helped my organization?

The solution reduces testing time, although not in all cases. But it is capable and in some cases, like for web testing, where we are easily able to capture screenshots and videos within the ALM workflow itself, or the test execution steps, it really saves us time. Otherwise, the guys have to keep on capturing screenshots into a file. Here, they can upload  everything in one shot. In that aspect, we have seen some savings in execution and, while they are not that drastic, it does help.

When it comes to the test planning cycle, if I have my regression cases, they could be almost 40 percent of the cases and they are repeated. So instead of uploading them again, I can easily replicate them in ALM. That is one way I am able to save and I would estimate that saves around 25 to 30 percent. The other part is when it comes to the execution steps. The savings are not so drastic but they could be between 5 and 10 percent.

What is most valuable?

The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time. Our people are deployed mainly offshore, and we have some guys working onsite as well. We have close coordination of the teams using calls. To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable.

The ability to connect all related entities and to reflect project status and progress is the main thing that, as a manager, you are able to see: progress in real time. If the guys are updating the status in real time, meaning that as soon as they finish execution they update the status, it is really helpful.

If you ask the testing guys what is most valuable, for them it's like a one-stop, central location for every project, where every artifact and everything else is recorded. It is a single point where you can store everything. It's very easy to track and escalate. The solution does a lot of things which will support you in your project delivery phase.

When it comes to managing multiple projects, as long as everybody is actually recording all the requirements in the Requirements module of the tool, and from there the test cases and test plans — if everybody is doing that — it is really helpful. When we look at the status, we can actually map it to the requirements and we can see which of the requirements have been completed end-to-end, what we're spending, and so on. However, one thing we see is that not everybody uses the Requirements module to log the requirements. For certain projects, people just start using ALM from the time they upload the test cases, during test planning. In such cases, I am not able to see all the information. But for the projects where ALM is being used end-to-end, it is really helpful. The tool itself is really good. It all depends on how you are using it.

In terms of the solution’s ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment, I am sure the solution is capable. Our current usage here is not so large. But I previously worked in companies where around 300 users were using ALM for everything. In that setting, it was a central location where we could see all the results in real time. Here, I handle around six or seven projects simultaneously. But I have seen people who are handling up to 30 or 35 projects simultaneously, all using ALM. I've seen other organizations where people use it completely, for all their projects. There may be different managers, but it is a single location where everything can be tracked. It is scalable and it is pretty user-friendly as well.

In ALM, when you start to execute something, you can record and capture screenshots and videos. Once the team was trained in those features, I could see that they started recording and that they were doing the execution. When they close the last test, the recording is attached automatically. The tool is capable and, again, it comes down to how people are using it. If they are using it in the right way, we are able to capture everything.

What needs improvement?

ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers. We have other applications that work perfectly fine with Chrome. It is not a major problem, but browser compatibility is an issue. And if you're using a Mac, it doesn't work.

We have a digital platform and we have done a lot of automation using Selenium there. Those tools have the ability to work in Chrome. But I am not able to integrate ALM completely, end-to-end. For example, using the automation tools we have to initiate test execution from ALM and then take all the results and upload them back. So I'm not able to work end-to-end because of the browser compatibility issues.

The majority of our guys are working on Windows and they have IE. For manual execution, I've never seen a problem. But when it comes to automation, I have an issue.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for about eight years. Our company has been around for almost 11 years. Out of that, for about eight years we've been using HP QC, now known as ALM. We've been using it continuously throughout that time.

I just recently returned to this team. When we started the testing phases here, I was leading the team. I moved out and I just joined it again three months ago. When I left, we were on version 11 so we must be on 12.55 now.

The solution is on the cloud, it is not on our premises.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is pretty stable. I don't think we have seen any issue. The availability is always 99.999 and it has never been down unless there is a planned outage. 

In the last two years, we have seen issues for two or three hours, but that is the maximum we have seen. 

When there is a planned outage they always notify us in advance. Otherwise, the application is always available. Our guys work in multiple shifts. They work throughout the day and they work at night as well and it's always available.

How are customer service and technical support?

If we request any kind of support, they are always there to help. They are very good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before ALM, we were only using Excel. But along with ALM right now, we also have some projects that are using JIRA, and there are some people who are using Confluence. The digital teams here are using JIRA.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We had engineers come in and they gave us training and showed us what we would be doing. They were very supportive, from the customer onboarding perspective. They did a very good job. Initially, there was all this complexity. We didn't know how to manage it because it was very new to the team. They came and trained us very well. To put it simply, the onboarding process was amazing. We have monthly sessions with their team and we have continuous contact. It's pretty organized.

They started the planning two months ahead. Everything happened in a proper, planned way. That is something I really like about Micro Focus. The initial installation took almost two months. In part, that was because of internal problems. We were using Excel and some other tools. To migrate from there to ALM took some time. That included moving the data. We had to make sure that whatever data we had was not lost and that even the number of test cases was the same as what we had before.

Upgrades happen in a single day, or sometimes two to three days.

In terms of the implementation, it happened a long time ago. They first asked us for a timeline and they then held multiple sessions on the features and the abilities of the tool, with multiple teams over the course of two to three weeks. After that they came and deployed ALM itself and tested the compatibility with our machines, because we had some desktops and laptops. That took some time. Micro Focus gave us an installer that we had to push to all our machines. Once all the machines were updated with the installer, we started using it.

What was our ROI?

We have definitely seen return on our investment in Micro Focus. Imagine the amount of hours that our guys would be spending tracking stuff in Excel. If you look at the number of man-days that my team would have to spend on that and at the licensing costs, of course it is worth it. I'm very happy with it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing has been the same for the past few years. It is reasonable. It is not very high. Of course, the cheaper the better, from our point of view. But the tool and its quality are amazing, really good. And including the support their team is giving us, I think the price is justified. It's a fair price.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did not evaluate other tools at that time. My manager and I — we came from different organizations — had both been using HP. I was using HP QC 9.0 when I moved here. When we started off our testing stream, the only tool that came to mind was HP. In addition, HP was one of the vendors that was being used for testing other stuff in our company.

Even now, we are not looking at other tools. 

What other advice do I have?

It's all about the mindset. ALM has a lot of features. We, ourselves, are only using about 30 percent of the features. If you are expecting that when you start deploying ALM you'll be using everything it has, that's not the case. Of course the tool has all the features, but there are some customizations that can be done based on your needs, and the Micro Focus team will be able to help you with that. It's all about setting expectations and telling them exactly what you want.

Initially, we were not sure what we wanted to see. But after some time we understood that there are so many features. For example, the reporting part: ALM has automated reports but they require some things to be entered at first. If your team has the skill to set up your own stuff, that's good. If not, the Micro Focus team can support you. ALM can automate reports so that, at the end of the day, it sends out an email so your team doesn't actually have to prepare all that information and send it.

To make full use of ALM you have to invest some of your time. It has a lot of features. Most people will just use the basic stuff and they will be happy with it. But if you start exploring it, you will find it has a lot of capabilities. And they are all included in the licensing cost. Don't just go with the flow and keep doing what you're doing. Spend some time and ask ALM the right questions and they'll be able to help you. You will get more benefit out of the tool. That is one thing I have learned in using the solution.

Micro Focus is still investing in the product and releasing valuable features. We have been asked to upgrade our version so that means they are working on upgrading features and are fixing bugs. In previous versions, I was seeing that things were a bit slower. It took time to actually load. But now, my team is saying that it is fine.

In terms of security, ALM has controlled access. Every user has his own login and password. We restrict access. There is one admin on our team and he's the guy who controls who accesses our systems. Before we create a user ID for someone, they have to go through a review process. We need to understand which team he is working for and for how long he will need access. In that way, we keep things in control. As for uploading our data, I don't think anybody will be able to access it. It's pretty secure.

Right now we have 35 licenses for 35 concurrent users. But the number of actual users is around 400. It's being used by our testing guys as well as business people and even our senior management. If they want to see reports in real time, they log in and see them. From that perspective, it is really helping us.

We don't have many people involved in maintaining it. I don't have a dedicated person on our side to manage it. Micro Focus manages everything. I have one point of contact and she takes care of everything.

For me and for our organization, it's a really good product. I'm really happy with it. It's a 10 out of 10. It meets my needs completely.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
YingLei - PeerSpot reviewer
YingLeiProduct Marketing Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

Thanks Shinu for your valuable review. Your title highlights the end-to-end traceability for requirements, and what you wrote in the "other advice" part is especially helpful - ALM/Quality Center does have rich features. By making full use of these features, customers will achieve higher ROI.

I understand that you need a web-based client that is independent of browser type and operating system. We now have a pure web-based client for testers, and plan to let it support other roles in future releases. It surly works with Chrome. Check out what's in the current version from here: https://admhelp.microfocus.com/alm/en/15.0-15.0.1/online_help/Content/Web_Runner/main_menu.htm

I also want to let you know that ALM/Quality Center has a "Client Launcher" which is the new solution for users and site admins to do everything without the need of IE.

You can download it for free from Micro Focus AppDelivery Marketplace at
https://marketplace.microfocus.com/appdelivery/content/alm-client-launcher
And here’s a short video showing how to use it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F37l7ZIiwTw
For details, please refer to the ALM Client Launcher User Guide:
https://admhelp.microfocus.com/alm/ALM_Client_Launcher/ALM_Client_Launcher_Guide.pdf

Manoj Ray - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Lead at Vodafone
Real User
Helps with our delivery, testing, and quality processing
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."

What is our primary use case?

We are from a Vodafone department that manages testing and quality. We brought this tool in to assist us. We are constantly using it. 95 percent of projects are running on it.

We mostly use this solution on our laptop devices.

How has it helped my organization?

It is helping with our delivery, testing, and quality processing. It links all our test cases with defects. Users from across the globe can comment on a defect or add attach artifacts to the defect cycle. ALM adds control with its integration.

We use it for visibility on multiple projects. We categorize all our deliveries into different domains and projects. Recently, we had a call with the technical team and they suggested to split our project into multiple domains and projects since this account is not that big. We hardly have six to seven projects running in parallel so we manage with one domain and one project, and all other projects are archived. We decided the way forward would be to split one project into multiple domains. This way, if in future something goes wrong, other projects will not get impacted if there is a problem with a project.

The solution’s ability to connect all related entities to reflect project status and progress is good. Right now, individual users are logging in with Single Sign-On and uploading their test cases. Performance usability is fine.

We have never experienced any security issues.

What is most valuable?

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. It is the same with defects. It uses a common forum for tracking the defects and centralizing discussions.

Test Lab: This is where we keep all the test cases and mapping of all the defects. It's also for storing of all the artifacts.

Defect management: This is a good feature and fulfills all our requirements. We use it for user and role management. Only the admins can see all the users' details.

We use the application's Single Sign-On feature. The usability is good. There are no access performance issues. It is easily understood, even for new users. 

What needs improvement?

It takes time because it has a 360 view of all the processes when talking about test case, design, and defects. There are so many things to track. Therefore, if I try to inject Micro Focus ALM into a small agile, delivery project, there is resistance. If there is resistance, is there flexibility for customization based on project scale? I don't know if this is possible.

Also, it adds time when I upload and execute all my test cases to Micro Focus ALM. For example, when I prepare test cases, I need to run them individually, then upload them to my sheet. After 10 days, I might have finished all my testing after tracking everything in Excel. Moving to ALM at this point adds time and overhead. It increases my testing timeline, e.g., if my testing takes eight days, when I add on time for ALM, the testing time is now 10 days.

The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system.

For how long have I used the solution?

From 2011, we have been using Test Director, which became HP ALM, and finally Micro Focus ALM Quality Center.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven't seen any issues when working with multiple projects. Maybe once a year, we have an issue with stability.

When this solution was upgraded to version 12.55, we saw some performance issues. We raised this as an incident. The team has worked on this and provided us with results. We have seen performance issues which may not be related to ALM, such as latency in the data or remote working conditions. These are issues that we are raising to the Micro Focus team though.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have experienced some scalability issues. I would rate the scalability as an eight to nine out of 10.

We have about 50 to 60 users logging into the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

I would rate our Qatar technical support as 10 out of 10. Our technical support person is always available to help us. We are very thankful for the service and support. The communication is excellent. However, when we have an issue, e.g., an application is not working, having error, or we are raising a ticket, it takes time to resolve. This should be improved.

How was the initial setup?

When we were installing for the first time, it was not simple. We could not just go to the URL and install. There were some initial installations problems with IE where we have to add the URL and make it a trust site. This had to be done by an admin, which takes times. I would like to see this improved. 

After the installation, we didn't have any problems with deployment or integration into our environment.

We can open this solution by URL and access the application where it runs to the server. We do have a restriction when installing infrastructure applications. We have to ask our IT to have our admin install it.

Admins should not need to directly install objects into the application. This should be done directly into the server or cloud.

What about the implementation team?

We don't do any maintenance. The solution is SaaS and managed by the Micro Focus team.

What was our ROI?

The solution has saved time with background activities and helped my delivery to move forward. However, this application is a support function into our delivery.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Compared to the market, the price is high.

We just renewed our licenses, which took time to do. I think we have 30 concurrent licenses. 

The world is changing to open source code and free applications. This may be an issue in the future.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

In one of our agile projects that was going into a sprint, we recently started using Jira (about a year ago). This was for a small delivery project whose team felt more comfortable using it. For example, if a tester raises a defect in ALM, there are many fields, including those that we have customized. It takes time to raise a defect, then close it. Since it takes time, the project team decided Jira is quicker and also open source. On the other hand, they agree that Micro Focus ALM is better overall, e.g., in the way, it keeps information and provides reports. Because the team didn't need a lot of information as part of their delivery, they went with Jira.

What other advice do I have?

We are happy. It is a good product. We have benefited from the tool and recommend it. We have received very good feedback regarding its use. From a user perspective, the ability to create test cases and manage defects is excellent.

We are planning to integrate automation with Micro Focus ALM. This is in development. 

We are doing risk-based testing using manual generation of the script, then uploading it.

To use the flexibility feature from a requirement to my test cases and get the benefit of traceability per the SDLC process, I would need to keep and map all my requirements. It is on the user whether they are using this feature or not. While I know this feature is there, we are currently not using it. We are manually managing traceability. We are preparing and keeping all our test cases in Excel. When the test cases have built up, we are manually mapping them based on our requirements.

We are not currently using mapping test cases. This is a feature of ALM that would allow us to map our requirements, solutions, and everything the test misses. We had a call with the Micro Focus technical team regarding this and about how we can use other features. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
PeerSpot user
YingLei - PeerSpot reviewer
YingLeiProduct Marketing Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User

Thanks Manoj for this valuable review, it really helps people who are looking for a solution of this category.

I want to let you know that ALM/Quality Center client no long has dependency on IE browser. ALM Client Launcher is the new solution for users and site admins to do everything without the need of IE.

You can download it for free from Micro Focus AppDelivery Marketplace at
https://marketplace.microfocus.com/appdelivery/content/alm-client-launcher
And here’s a short video showing how to use it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F37l7ZIiwTw
For details, please refer to the ALM Client Launcher User Guide:
https://admhelp.microfocus.com/alm/ALM_Client_Launcher/ALM_Client_Launcher_Guide.pdf

Caroline Gitonga - PeerSpot reviewer
Presales Consultant at Oracle
Real User
One of the biggest pluses is having all your test assets in one place, however the project tracking is a bit complex

What is our primary use case?

Consolidate the testing process, centralised reporting, ease of analytics on metrics, easier bug management, consistent flow of requirements, flow of test cases, reusable test cases, testing history, bugs.

How has it helped my organization?

It has improved our organization as a result of several factors: All test assets are in one central location; Easier to track progress of QA activities; Easier reporting; Easier to assess quality

What is most valuable?

Requirements Management, Test Plan, Test Lab, Defect Management, Sprinter, Access control, Versioning and audit.

What needs improvement?

The project tracking is a bit complex. It takes some time to maneuver around it. It would also help if you could export some of the reports generated from it e.g. the Master Plan.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

No

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Can be used for really large organisations, multiple test projects

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer Service:

Very responsive, though we haven't needed a lot of support.

Technical Support:

Technical Support has been helpful.

How was the initial setup?

Initial setup was straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

Vendor. The team was very qualified, both technically and from a user perspective.

What was our ROI?

We haven't yet computed the ROI.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Original cost was $158,000. Our day-to-day cost is difficult to compute, but it’s very low.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Yes, IBM - CLM.

What other advice do I have?

It’s a great product for managing an end-to-end lifecycle process. It’s easy to use once you get the hang of it. One of the biggest pluses is having all your test assets in one place – requirements, models, test cases, test results, bugs, reporting, tracking (it’s unbeatable in my opinion).

It's also great that HP has now lowered the Saas cost for ALM - it was too high in my view.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user1136214 - PeerSpot reviewer
Expert System Test and Test Tools at Airbus Operations
Real User
Automatic document generation has streamlined our testing process
Pros and Cons
  • "By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
  • "We would like to have support for agile development."

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for an Avionic System to test for integration and verification with real and simulated hardware.

How has it helped my organization?

By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation.

What is most valuable?

The automated document generation provides the ability to perform tests within one day of our flight test readiness reviews. In the past, the timespan was several weeks.

What needs improvement?

We would like to have support for agile development. As we do not have this capability, we are now investigating the use of Octane.

For how long have I used the solution?

Five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Senior Vice President at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Defect tracking is useful, but the licensing model is awful

What is our primary use case?

  • Test management
  • Defect management, and 
  • Test case storage.

How has it helped my organization?

Good test management tool.

What is most valuable?

Defect tracking.

What needs improvement?

Licensing model is awful.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user1012047 - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality Assurance Manager at Westar Energy, Inc.
Real User
Helps focus on requirements, testing, and execution.

What is our primary use case?

Quality assurance, requirement, and testing.

How has it helped my organization?

ALM helps focus on requirements, test, and the execution, track your defects, etc.

What is most valuable?

  • Requirements
  • Test
  • Release process
  • Defect tracking.

What needs improvement?

Release management and integration with other tools.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Quality Assurance Director at Charter Communications, Inc.
Real User
Has test management for multiple products but could use a bridge to JIRA and Tableau

What is our primary use case?

  • Test management for multiple products
  • Risk-based testing
  • Requirements mapping
  • Reporting.

How has it helped my organization?

  • Reusable test cases
  • Requirement traceability
  • Reporting.

What is most valuable?

Test cycles.

What needs improvement?

Bridge to JIRA and Tableau.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Ivana Buljan - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Development Manager at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
We can check everything, know who is the sponsor for it, and make a test plan. Everything is very visible.

What is our primary use case?

We use it for manual and automatic testing along with defect and requirements management. We can check everything, know who is the sponsor for it, and make a test plan. Everything is very visible. 

What needs improvement?

ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach. We have also installed ALM Octane and are trying to see if it fills the approach that we are looking for our company.

For how long have I used the solution?

One to three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable. We have not had any problems. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I have a good impression of the scalability. I have been very satisfied. 

How are customer service and technical support?

I used tech support once. It took a while to solve the issue, but it was solved.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before, we used Excel for complex testings. Using this solution has been a huge step for us. From reporting to team management, everything is better now. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user669378 - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President - Test Management Lead at DBS Bank
Real User
The task management reporting has a lot of out-of-the box uses

What is our primary use case?

I use 80 to 90 percent of the product's features. 

What is most valuable?

  • It has a good response time.
  • The AI and functionality interface are useful. 
  • The task management reporting has a lot of out-of-the box uses.

What needs improvement?

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. 

Micro Focus ALM needs to bring the features of this ALM into the newer version of Octane. 

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

ALM can scale and is very impressive. It can support thousands of users with a very low amount of resources. It can easily manage very big projects within thousands of people at a time. It allows and disables scale, supporting front-end operations and task management at different levels. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite easy, if you know what you are doing. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Quality Assurance Manager at Reliance Standard Life Insurance
User
I like the customizable report functionality

What is our primary use case?

My prior organization used the test execution and defect modules for QC. As a manager, I was able to set up reports that allowed me to finds areas of improvement for my team. We used the import functionality to import test cases for reusability and execution.

How has it helped my organization?

Prior to using Quality Center, my organization used spreadsheets and emails to track testing efforts. Therefore, QC helped my team become more efficient by tracking all testing activities with the tool.

What is most valuable?

I like the customizable report functionality. I was able to set up reports that allowed me to accurately give a real-time status all of all testing projects that were in process.

What needs improvement?

  • I would love to see QC update and use metric dashboards at the individual and project level. 
  • The UI also needs some updating with a fresh new look and feel.

For how long have I used the solution?

More than five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Sarah Kemle - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Business Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.
Pros and Cons
  • "The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
  • "This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
  • "There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution for model testing and as a central location for the test case responses and some test automation.

How has it helped my organization?

Central test locations are a benefit. The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed.

What is most valuable?

This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.

What needs improvement?

There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic.

They could also improve the usability.

For how long have I used the solution?

Less than one year.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I find the system very stable. There is very little downtime.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This solution is scalable. There is the ability to draw on the different platforms, especially with ALM Octane. However, I am more interested in the new hard platforms, so more of a container platform or solution. This is on their roadmap in the next three years, so at least there is a plan for it.

How is customer service and technical support?

It is very good. We are located in Germany, and they have a service partner here. The fix given to us depends on the complexity of the problem, but usually we get answers within a day.

What other advice do I have?

If someone is researching solutions, they should know that this solution is stable, centralized, and scalable. If they need integration, then this is the tool to use.

When selecting a vendor, some important criteria are availability, knowledge, price, and the site where they are getting the product. For example, if we have people doing a project as a team, then it is best if the solution can work in different languages, like German and English.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user791871 - PeerSpot reviewer
Founder & Software Solutions Manager at infomera
User
Provides visibility on release status and readiness

What is our primary use case?

It is a complete AQM suite: single repository for tests, requirements, defects, etc. 

How has it helped my organization?

  • It provides visibility on release status and readiness. 
  • It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations.

What is most valuable?

  • Test management
  • Requirements management
  • Defects

What needs improvement?

  • Pure-FTPd WebUI
  • Single sign-on
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
QA Analyst at Tsoft
User
Lab Management provides a 360 view

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case is for regression testing.

How has it helped my organization?

We use Micro Focus products together to improve organizational SLAs.

What is most valuable?

Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view.

What needs improvement?

The QA needs improvement.

For how long have I used the solution?

Three to five years.
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Avantika Dayama - PeerSpot reviewer
Project Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level
Pros and Cons
  • "The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs."
  • "By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."

    What is our primary use case?

    Our current environment is ALM QC 12.53 and for performance testing ALM PC 12.53, Vugen 12.53, and UFT 14.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Micro Focus Quality Center helps in end-to-end traceability from releases to requirements to test cases and with defects. The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs.

    What is most valuable?

    The Project Templates and Enhanced Reporting features are the most useful. We have created domains as per the business units, and per business units, there is one template. It becomes easy to manage the template at business unit level. By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level.

    What needs improvement?

    • Easy integration with open source tools. 
    • It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    More than five years.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I feel that the licenses are expensive. 

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    QA at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    ​Allows us to have a single source of truth for our test efforts

    What is most valuable?

    The ability to show end-to-end tractability between requirements, tests, defects, and also reporting.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Allows us to have a single source of truth for our test efforts.

    What needs improvement?

    The reporting could be a little more robust.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used this version since June 2015. However, I have used this product since 1999, when it was Test Director 6.0.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Very infrequently.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Not so far, no.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    A seven out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No. We have used Quality Center/ALM since I joined this organization.

    How was the initial setup?

    A little complex as it pertains to migrating databases, then manually linking them back up to the file repositories.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    In my current role, I don't advise anyone about pricing and licensing for this product.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    This product was already in-house when I joined my company.

    What other advice do I have?

    If you go the on-premise route, make sure your system architects and DBAs thoroughly review the installation/upgrade guide. I would also advise establishing a "center of excellence" department which can help build template projects and enforce standards so the users are all using similarly configured projects.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    IT Quality Assurance Analyst at a energy/utilities company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Furnishes metrics that provide insights into the management and delivery of projects
    Pros and Cons
    • "As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
    • "HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."

    What is most valuable?

    As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies. As a project user, HPE ALM can provide a logical approach in conducting comprehensive test planning, execution, and defect management.

    How has it helped my organization?

    My organization uses HPE ALM to track the progress of testing and quality assurance efforts across projects that we are formally engaged in. The product has provided my team with metrics that provide various insights into the management and delivery of projects with respect to documented business needs.

    What needs improvement?

    HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent. Knowledge of HPE ALM’s data model is important when setting up certain reports, and can be challenging depending on reporting requirements. Even so, these reports may not translate into appropriate insights that will provide value to a project or management team. The performance of the product may also be a concern, depending on the amount of active connections and data processing that it has to conduct at any given moment.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    HPE ALM is relatively stable, especially with more recent versions (12.5X). However, it is important to consider utilization frequency of HPE ALM at any given time and ensure that hosted application/database servers are configured to handle resource-intensive transactions to minimize performance/availability/data integrity issues. Micro Focus has published certified/supported configurations for running HPE ALM servers and client computing devices.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    In general, HPE ALM has the potential to be very scalable from both a feature and usage perspective. HPE ALM has the capability to create project templates which may then be linked and applied to different projects. The solution also allows for customizations to be applied by individual project. However, an organization must exercise discipline in applying consistent processes to manage and govern any projects which use HPE ALM, to avoid data/information management problems.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    HPE’s technical support services are fair but leave a lot to be desired. An alternative to the direct HPE offering would be to pursue outside, well-known, thirrd-party professional support services that have extensive knowledge in HPE ALM and associated tools.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No, I have not used a different solution in the past.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup of HPE ALM is relatively easy. However, it does become more complex when the product must be configured to meet company needs and compliance policies. This includes site configuration parameters, migrating existing projects from a previous version, securing access, and implementing integration to other HPE products such as HPE Performance Center. Many of these considerations are documented within the HPE ALM Installation and Upgrade Guide.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It appears that most companies choose HPE Quality Center Enterprise or HPE ALM. HPE ALM contains everything included with Quality Center Enterprise, and further adds features focused on cross-project customization, planning, and tracking.

    Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product. There is also the option of utilizing HPE ALM/Quality Center Enterprise as hosted on HPE’s SaaS platform.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    This product was already chosen from a historical perspective. Although some high-level research around alternative solutions (Helix/TestTrack, Microsoft) was performed, none of them seem to be as comprehensive or as well suited towards satisfying existing needs.

    What other advice do I have?

    HPE ALM is a relevant product that assists with test delivery, execution, and management within a project-driven environment. I would recommend others to check out the HPE ALM Help Center and product pages for additional information before making a decision.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user773973 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user773973System Analyst with 51-200 employees
    Vendor

    Any idea about the License cost of UFT Ultimate Edition and ALM

    it_user740445 - PeerSpot reviewer
    IT Specialist with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Vendor
    Allows us to customize any action, window, or workflow meeting all our testing needs

    What is most valuable?

    We mostly use the Defect module and then Test Plan, Test Lab. But if you ask about the most valuable feature it is the customization of any action in the ALM client. We can customize any action, window, or workflow of not only the Defect workflow but also any other entity. There is no other tool that can do it in such a way.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The testing methodology we use means we do not need any other tool for requirements, testing and so on.

    What needs improvement?

    • Dashboard complexity
    • Quick generation (for many entities the reports are very slow)
    • Test Lab is very complex, it should be simpler

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We used it for more than 10 years (from version 8 as Test Director from Mercury).

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The clients, of course, are not stable, but it is acceptable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is not a problem at this time because the hardware is better than the software needs.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Yes, we used Rational ClearQuest. It was very customizable too but it was old and tough and we need a better and more elegant solution.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup is very simple, but the upgrade on Linux is impossible so we moved to Windows.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Pricing is very big, so it's good is to negotiate with its vendors. The solution is not so important and should not cost so much.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Yes, we evaluated three other options but it was about 10 years ago and it is not relevant now to specify them here. The other options also have very good solutions.

    What other advice do I have?

    Do the simple implementation, do not customize it because you will have more problems.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Staff QA Engineer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    We​ have multiple teams across the globe where we have multiple projects set up in it. We have had some issues where the operation is not able to run tests.

    What is most valuable?

    It gives me the ease of putting together the requirements, test cases, the release test schedules, and executing the test. It can generate the reports for each and every release that we need, and it's quick and easy enough to generate reports.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We have multiple teams across the globe where we have multiple projects set up in ALM. One project is used by our team in Israel and our other project is used by a team in Atlanta. We have a centralized control or multiple projects going across the globe. So that's a good benefit for us.

    What needs improvement?

    We actually use Performance Center, too. Where what we need is: When we run any test to the Performance Center, the results are stored in ALM, too. But what happens instead, the results show a summary report in HTML or a .zip file. But if there was a way in the test lab for ALM, after running any Performance Center test, that the the results could be published in the test lab itself instead of going and opening the particular result (if it shows all the response time and whatever transactional data that we have) in the ALM lab itself, that would be beneficial for us.

    Also, on and off, we have had some issues with the operation itself where the operation is not able to run the test or something. We have to go back and forth with the vendor and HPE (now Micro Focus) to get this resolved.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    For the last 10 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    For ALM, we didn't have any specific downtime crashes, but we have had some issues with the database connection. The internal database where we put in the ALM data might crash or the database connection is lost. That's where we noticed some issues.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Whatever version of ALM that we have, it is more than enough for what we have right now. In terms of scaling, I can say it will go beyond four to five years from now.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    For any of the operators, the support is extremely useful. It's great, actually. They are always available on-time.

    How was the initial setup?

    It's straightforward to operate, but you actually need to get involved with the concerning vendors when you need their support.

    We cannot just go download anything from online and put it. We need some support from the concerning team to make sure everything is right.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user739587 - PeerSpot reviewer
    QA Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Produces a number of reports and graphs which help when working with our clients

    What is most valuable?

    I am the QA Manager, so we use it to score all our test cases, results, defects, and reporting, which is very important. We're able to produce a number of reports and graphs. This helps us a lot when working with our clients.

    What needs improvement?

    We're doing a lot of agile work and using a number of different agile tools. Agile integration, as right now it does integrate with version 1.0, but I'm not sure about its integration with some of the other agile tools.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We've been using it for about five years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is stable. We've really had no downtime experiences. We've had good experiences with it.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is scalable. We're actually moving onto the SaaS product. We're looking at that right now.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Tech support has been very helpful when we've had some questions or issues. They've been very responsive.

    How was the initial setup?

    I'll find out over the next couple of months as we are looking to do the first upgrade since I have been using it.

    What other advice do I have?

    It's a very good tool. We use it throughout the company. There are just some integration points which could be a little better. But if they're out there, I don't know about them. Maybe having the knowledge and knowing about them would help as well.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    IT Manager at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Upgrading is too complex and costly. Provides app test case organization with a way to be able to organize it.

    What is most valuable?

    Definitely the testing. My app test case organization, being able to organize it, and standardize a quality program.

    What needs improvement?

    Definitely ease the complexity of the tool: the upgrading part of the tool. It needs to be easier.

    Also, it needs easier integrations. I know one of the big reasons we did upgrades to the ALM upgrade license was because you could use Octane, which Tasktop is giving free for a year. That helps integrate with some of our other tools. I think as our organization, one of our biggest challenges is, we have all of these different tools, and getting them to talk to each other. To really have a whole encompassing pipeline, that is our challenge.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Five years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We don't really have downtime, but we do have where it crashes here and there. So, stability is not great, but okay.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It does not meet our needs. The product is very geared towards waterfall. Very stable, standard things, and as an organization, we want to be innovative. We want to try new things, and it just doesn't seem to do that easily.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    It's okay. We've had to escalate things a few times to get answers, but they have provided them in the end.

    How was the initial setup?

    Setup and upgrades are complex.

    Probably one of my biggest issues with the product is that it's so complex and hard to do. We even paid $30,000 for a consultant to come in. One year in, then we wanted this upgrade again, and they wanted to have a consultant come in again. I'm like, "We just did!"

    So, we decided, "We're going to try it without it," and so far it's going well, but the complexity of it seems to be daunting to engineers, not like other tools that they implement and upgrade.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user739584 - PeerSpot reviewer
    QA Manager at a individual & family service
    Vendor
    We can customize based on the project and on how we want to control the testing

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable thing is the flexibility of the customized options. That makes it more powerful than any other tool. We can customize based on the project and on how we want to control the testing.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We used to have 10 different Excel spreadsheets for one project. Then, we switched everything: paper, Excel, etc. to be done in ALM. There is no outside noise and everything is done under one umbrella.

    What needs improvement?

    The canned report site could be improved. You can get your report but you have to do some stuff. If the project doesn't have a good, strong user, they don't get these reports. If we have more canned reports from the ALM site, this will solve some issues.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using the ALM call center since the Mercury times, so the last 10 to 12 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's very stable. In last 12 years, we've probably had two/three downtimes. But, nothing concerning their application.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Yeah, it is scalable. 10 years back, we started with five users. Now, we have 38 confirmed licenses. Over the years, we have grown from having just a few projects to having more than 25 large projects.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Our experience with the HPE support was not great. We have not used Micro Focus yet. Based on that, we switch to a consulting firm, Melillo, for the support because we were not getting direct answer from the HPE support, therefore we switched because of that. Now, we get a better service. Hopefully, with Micro Focus, it will be better.

    How was the initial setup?

    If someone is doing the setup for the first time, it might be a little complex for them. However, if you are continuously upgrading, then it should be fine, because all of our upgrades we have done in-house. We never went to a company to get that bit done. If you plan it right, you can have the upgrade very smoothly done, so the user isn't affected.

    What other advice do I have?

    Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: support and stability of the product. These are the two most important things to us. We want to have continuous improvement, because there are places to improve; we also don't want rapid changes, because they do affect the user, so that balance is important.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Test Management Architect at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Enables management of all the important assets and metrics

    What is most valuable?

    The overall task management. Managing all the assets and metrics.

    What needs improvement?

    I'm not familiar with all the changes, but they definitely have to be more DevOps friendly. They have to certainly be more open source friendly. That's the world we live in, where we can cut costs away from large-scale vendor contracts and service contracts. The ability to seamlessly integrate and provide more capability for those, managing those infrastructures and solutions, is going to be critical historically.

    A lot of the vendor products - not just HPE or, in this case, Micro Focus, or whomever that I've dealt with over the years - were much more proprietary, much more exclusive. And what we're finding now is that the world doesn't work like that. Particularly as you move left and shift towards DevOps, application teams now don't consume from a central resource, they consume based upon decisions made internally to that application team.

    Ultimately, what they need is flexibility. So any vendor product needs to have that intrinsic in its fiber, to be able to adopt open source, and integrate basically into almost anything, to expand out the choices available to an application; to make the decisions that need to be made independently at the time that they need to make them.

    Not having looked at the latest, ALM Octane, just coming from the old world, at the time that it was necessary to implement a test management system to gather more information, metrics across different teams, different platforms, it served the purpose.

    Things change constantly these days. There's a lot more going on. There are a lot more integrations available. I think if we're looking at the legacy owned product, I think its kind of come and gone as far as its ability to do what you need to do in a DevOps world. Any solutions in the future - I know ALM Octane is the heir apparent to the old infrastructure - it's going to have to be more DevOps friendly. It will need to be able to enable the consumers, the application's users who ultimately become the developers, to see the value in a more organized test management practice, versus more of a kind of hidden, under the sheets unit testing.

    It's actually a whole trajectory of different solutions, different tests, that need to follow the pipeline for those folks. Anything that's not DevOps friendly, that's not DevOps easily consumable, to make the case for a more formal test management practice, is really going to end up by the wayside at the end of the day.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    11 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    My experience with the solution is that it has been fairly stable. What lies underneath is what creates the instability at the end of the day, the architecture that you are providing the solution on top of. I think once you figure out a viable, scalable approach to it, then the software itself, at least in my experience, has been very stable in running a test management operation.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It has met our needs. Just as long as you have the right architecture from the old days of physical server hardware to more of the newer stuff, which is VMware within datacenters - more virtualized.

    And certainly the next rage for everybody is moving into Cloud infrastructure. So things are becoming much more self-service. You're getting model scaling. You're getting the things that are making the system more maintainable. But from a scalability standpoint, you want to be able to scale to the needs at the time that you need them. The Cloud certainly provides that capability.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I think like every company, they're changing the landscape. Support, in my experience, has been pretty good. There are always challenges based upon the routing/tier structure of who gets the issue first, how it gets routed, how it gets filtered down to the specific expertise that you need. That depends on your acumen as far as knowing your tooling, knowing your approach, what that's going to be.

    Somebody who is very savvy, will obviously have frustrations coming into a tier-one support desk. Who they really need to go talk to at the end of the day may be somebody, and it will vary by company, like a tier-three, real low-level, very experienced resource support tech who fixes those issues. So it's going to vary based upon the customer's competency versus how they are routed through a support desk.

    What other advice do I have?

    Testing is going to be testing. And the same challenges that you have in any of the different industries are going to be the challenges that you have in the ours, the insurance and financial industry, as well.

    You know from DevOps to Agile, to Shift Left to Cloud, to managing your test assets efficiently and effectively, industry is really not going to make a difference.

    I've been in a number of different sectors over the years. I've been in QA about 25 years, and having been in the natural gas industry, financials, insurance, HR systems. They are all pretty much the same challenges around testing. So I don't see a discrepancy in terms of the application you're testing. It's almost agnostic to the challenges that are innate with trying to test, within any type of development environment. Now, it just happens to be a more self-service DevOps model, where application teams make those decisions. But there's still always going to be those QA challenges.


    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Principal consultant qa architect at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
    Consultant
    Provides QA management and project management - testing, defect management, and reporting
    Pros and Cons
    • "Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
    • "I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."

    What is most valuable?

    Test management and reporting. Those are the two most important things. I tell my customers that the two main reasons they have ALM:

    • Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements.
    • And reporting to make good business decisions in the future.

    How has it helped my organization?

    When I was a customer, it improved my organization because I was able to manage, to enforce standards on building tests, executing tests, and manage centralized reporting.

    Now, I translate that over to my customers from various levels of the spectrum from complete, "We have no idea what to do to, we're doing stuff but we know we need to change," to "We've got some stuff and we just want to tweak what we're doing now."

    What needs improvement?

    I'd like to see the idea of users being flushed out more, so not just, "This defect is now assigned to a particular person," or "This person is assigned to execute a test."

    I want to see the users expanded out to teams where you have five users and the sixth user is the manager, so the manager can roll the idea of somebody being responsible and accountable. The idea of things being assigned to a team of users and users belonging to that team. There are ways of getting around this in the tool because it's very customizable, but I'd like to see that separate from the idea of using security groups, which is one way of getting around that.

    I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    ALM has gotten more stable over the years. It's a stable app. Like any other large, complex application, you run into things every now and again. We have a system to report things and get them taken care of.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I have customers that are small and customers that are enterprise-wide. So I'm able to deploy it in both kinds of environments and customize the tool, depending on size and level of maturity, for any kind of customer. Also within any vertical as well.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I have used tech support. Mostly because I'm with a consulting company and we also support ALM. We have our own internal support organization that people can get into.

    In terms of Micro Focus support, because I'm a more advanced user - I've been using this tool since version 7 - I typically don't get a whole lot from first-level support. I tend to want to go right up to second, third, or even directly with the development organization. So I'm more the outlier, edge-case kind of person compared to most customers out there.

    Once I get to the people that are at the level that I know I need to deal with, they're good. I'm also dealing with the people on the other side of the ocean, working directly with people who may have actually coded ALM to begin with.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    When I became a customer in 2000/2001, when I first started, I was involved in the decision to purchase the solution. Now, as a professional services consultant, that decision has been made and I'm going in there to either deploy, upgrade, or help them use ALM to best suit their needs. In some cases I help them figure out what it is they need to have ALM do for them or how to customize it best.

    When I was a customer, we were not using another solution. We were completely manual and I was a department of one. I was the QA organization for a small development company and the two company owners said to me, "We want to invest in this, go look and see what's out there and show us what our options are and what you think the best option is."

    What caused us to switch to this solution was the customizability. The fact that we could make it give us the information that we needed to get out of it. The support organization seemed very top-notch. I actually learned a lot from the support organization when I was getting started in it. And I found it more intuitive then the Rational solution.

    How was the initial setup?

    I've deployed it in many organizations because I'm a consultant. I've deployed it, upgraded it, customized it, in various ways for different customers.

    In terms of complexity, it really depends on the needs of the customer.

    When I was a customer in a small development organization that only had 20 people in the entire company, I deployed it, I did the customization - that was way back in the day.

    Now, I have customers along the entire spectrum from small to large enterprise. Some customers are okay with near vanilla, out of the box. And some customers have very complex sets of business logic that they feel, for whatever reason, need to be enforced as far as how their defect management lifecycle is going to go. How their test construction, test execution lifecycle is going to go, how they want to manage requirements, and that can require significant customization.

    Some of my customers have compliance concerns, they have digital signatures and they have FDA 21 CFR Part 11 compliance. They have all of these rules that they have to follow and some of them are subject to interpretation, so with one particular rule I have one customer who says, "This is how we interpret the rule," and they have me customize it one way; and I have another customer who says, "No, we're not going to interpret it that, way we interpret this way," and it's a completely different set of customizations.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Back then it was Mercury Test Director, which is now ALM. We were also looking at the Silk products, and we were looking at the Rational, now IBM, products.

    What other advice do I have?

    When selecting a vendor to work with, I want to see that the technical people are really knowledgeable of what they're talking about. I want to know that the tool can give me what I need, not just, this is a standard proof of concept. I want to see what I need to see, and I want to know that, down the road, I'll be able to either get out of it what I need or be able to learn or have somebody come in to help me get out of it what I need. Because if I'm not getting out of it what I need, then I've wasted my money.

    I give it a nine because nothing is perfect, there's always room for improvement, especially when you're talking about an app system as large as ALM is. I've been using it for so long it's kind of second nature for me to think about where its strengths are, and know that if I can't get something done one way there's always another way around it. Or I can integrate something into it or build work flow to make the UI behave the way I want it to.

    Regarding advice to a colleague about ALM, remember that your process and your methodology should be driving what you need out of their tool and not the other way around. Tools can do some really cool stuff. You may look at it and say, "Okay, maybe we could get some value out of this feature that we're not doing today." But don't make that the driving force. It really needs to be able to support what you're doing and force the things that you want to get out of it. Because there's a truism in reporting: If you don't capture the data you can't build a report that's meaningful. So make sure it can get you what you need.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Caroline Gitonga - PeerSpot reviewer
    Caroline GitongaPresales Consultant at Oracle
    Real User

    A really good breakdown of the ALM story.

    See all 2 comments
    it_user739578 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Pp at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Provides all you need for managing test cases and test execution, but must install it on your desktop

    What is most valuable?

    It's a centralized test management solution. The fact that you have a place where you can go and find all the stuff that you need to find, and keep track of all of the results long term. That is extremely valuable.

    In terms of functionality, it really provides all of the stuff that you need for managing test cases and test execution and keeping track of all of these different items. Now, in terms of keeping up with the trends, there's obviously a lot of challenges.

    What needs improvement?

    The new offering, Octane, has all of the essential features that we need in order to move forward to the next mode of operation. I tried to use it and, unfortunately, we had all sorts of trouble down to some limitations as to what kind of URL you can use. That was a pretty sad issue that we ran into. Had that not been the case, I would right now be planning to move on to Octane.

    The key pieces of functionality are in place. The reason why I wouldn't rate it higher than seven out of 10 is because you're still using really obsolete technology like ActiveX. You have to physically install the product on your desktop. That's a big no-no. Other than that, it is not far away from being much better than what it is.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    17 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is very stable. It has some issues here and there but not significant.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have struggled to grow with the tool, because the original model was to have just a handful of ALM projects, whereas, we have more than 150 projects. Whenever you pass some threshold, it becomes a challenge.

    Even upgrading, it's a massive effort. I'd say at least a six month effort for us just to upgrade it.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    The tech support is not so great so far. At least as far as the HPE tech support is concerned. Before, when it was Mercury, it was the best tech support of all time. Right now it's okay. It's doable. It could be better though.

    What other advice do I have?

    When looking at a company to work with, it's as simple as knowing that the products are mature. We know that if there are going to be issues, we're going to be able to find solutions or some work around for them. It's as simple as that. There's a lot of competition out there. Especially in the open source space, but for you to get support on open source, that's probably a whole different ball game.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Business Systems Consultant at Wells Fargo
    Real User
    It enables our testers to work in a single application and provides traceability among testing and defects
    Pros and Cons
    • "I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
    • "I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."

    What is most valuable?

    I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects. Being able to build up a traceability matrix, being able to go through and show what's been covered, where your defects are, etc.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It's allowed us to be a little more consistent across the board. We have probably 80% of our QA teams using Quality Center. It is a system of record.

    It really does allow our testers to work in a single application. It's not as good if you don't set things up in advance to work with other applications. But we're working on that part.

    What needs improvement?

    I'd like to see an easier way to upgrade and install. I'd like to see it less required to have a client. I know that Octane doesn't require a client, but Octane is not mature enough for our organization. I'd like to see some of the good points from that integrated into it.

    I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's been around a really long time. It is very stable. It does require a little more work to upgrade, add patches, because you have to take it down. But then again, while it's running, we've had very little down time, very few issues from a system perspective.

    When we do have to take it down, we usually take a full weekend, because we're a very large instance. But usually the install and upgrade goes through and takes three or four hours, and then it's just going through and running repair/realign or upgrade on the existing projects.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Quality Center is very scalable. We have over 700 active projects on our instance. That's projects, not users.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I've seen a lot of improvement over the years, from tech support. We are premier customers, or whatever the newest term is. We do meet biweekly with them and when we have an issue, we can escalate it and we get very fast response times.

    How was the initial setup?

    We're a company that has gone through a lot of mergers and consolidations, and we've gone through and actually consolidated a lot of instances into ALM and, with that, the complexity is more with the users than it is with the application.

    Getting it installed, getting it set up, that's the easy part. Getting people trained to use it, that's a little bit harder. But once people start using it, they find that they're not sure how they did their job before.

    What other advice do I have?

    The most important criteria when selecting a vendor to work with are:

    • They need to be stable.
    • They need to be financially sound.
    • They need to have a good technology and support base.
    • They also need to be responsive to the company, because it's a big company, so we expect people to respond.

    I would advise a colleague considering this solution to start with a plan. Make sure you know what it is that you want to accomplish with Quality Center, and only add fields that will meet that. Use your current documentation, your current processes, to help design the fields and the projects for it, rather than just adding things one at a time. Don't allow a "wild west," which is where anybody can add fields, add workflow. You want to manage that from the top down.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Sr. Performance Engineer, ITQCoE at JetBlue Airways Corporation
    Vendor
    ALM gives us a solution where we can keep all of our test artifacts (such as scripts, scenarios, test data, etc.) centralized.

    What is most valuable?

    It gives us a solution where we can keep everything centralized like our test scripts, test data, and our projects. It doesn't matter who is creating the project, everybody can access and execute it. Both our onsite and offshore teams working from different locations are able to benefit from this solution. That's the beauty of it.

    How has it helped my organization?

    When we implemented this solution, we chose to virtualize, so we didn't implement any physical hardware. We're able to scale very quickly for very large projects when we need to run 5,000 user simulations. Afterwards, we can also scale down quickly. This gives us a lot of flexibility in our project executions.

    What needs improvement?

    The web client doesn't match the quality of the rest of the features of this solution. HP needs to improve it.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    There are some challenges we faced during the deployment. But, we've had no major issues.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We've used versions 11, 12, 12.2, and now, 12.53. They've been very stable in our environment.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We're able to scale up and down as needed. It has great flexibility when it comes to scaling.

    How was the initial setup?

    There are challenges related to the network security during the set up. But, once you figure it out, solution is relatively easy.

    What about the implementation team?

    We have done the implementation in-house.

    What was our ROI?

    While comparing to the previous solution, this solution gave us as much as 60% cost savings.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Before you start implementing, make a solid plan and try to figure out the challenges before hand.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user739575 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Principal engineer at a media company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    We use this tool extensively for Quality Assurance, however it needs to be adapted for Mac usage, not just Windows
    Pros and Cons
    • "You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
    • "The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."

    What is most valuable?

    You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between having everything in one tool and be able to validate everything up and down in the SDLC.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Over the years, we've used this tool extensively in quality assurance, so they can record the test cases. They do whatever they need to do to execute the test cases, then report on what they've done, and how many defects have appeared. If they've gone out of production, then they've actually been able to shorten the time for QA, shorten the time for development, and lessened the amount of defects that actually get out to production.

    What needs improvement?

    The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac. There's not any solution to any platform or browser. That's been a problem and people have been going to other tools because of it.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this product for about 18 years.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    To a certain extent. We've had some projects that have gotten very large, to the point where one of them has become unsustainable, and we had to split it up to upgrade it to the next version.

    The install itself, a lot of the DLLs and a lot of the times we get some updates, like Microsoft updates, cause issues with the tool itself. I think it can be improved, but if it's going to be a Windows program, something different than .net or something that's going to be more futuristic or really more inline with the technology of today.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    We have a SaaS solution right now. At one point, we were on-premise. When we were on-premise, we had premier support, which was phenomenal because we got immediate attention. The support that's not premier support, it is not so good.

    What other advice do I have?

    People don't take advantage of a lot of the functionality that the tool has. I think overall it's a very good tool for what it does.

    Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: They know me, and I know them, so having a very good relationship and a very good rapport is very important. If I need help, I can go to certain people, and I can get help.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user739545 - PeerSpot reviewer
    VP lead software engineering at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    We use the quality engineering testing tool plus the defect tracking to make our reports, projects, and quality better
    Pros and Cons
    • "You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
    • "It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."

    What is most valuable?

    You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system. Later, go back to check the coverage you are missing, so you can plan ahead and maybe reuse the same set as next time. Sort of like creating templates and reusing them over and over.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We use the quality engineering testing tool plus the defect tracking to make our reports, projects, and quality better. Once we had the evidence to approve all the testing and all the coverage, the reporting went better. Usually, the products make it much easier to identify the issues we have.

    What needs improvement?

    It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup.

    It's not flexible enough. The formatting is also an issue. For example, the project manager doesn't like the use it, even for requirements, because it's not easy for them to change it. If they make a mistake and go back, it is hard to change the formatting to make it good. So, they have to share or use another one that try to upload. But, after the upload, you cannot change it because the IDs are identified. It's hard for them to work somewhere in-between, adding something in there, then keep the rest of them record is still linked well.

    It's difficult to change it. Let's say you set up the requirement, if you change the requirement, by adding any on bottom which won't cause an issue, but I want to add it in central somewhere, then you mess up all the linkage for the test plan and test lab.

    This requirement piece is what I think is the biggest disadvantage for the Quality Center. I do know Micro Focus does have a bunch of the new tools, but that depends if a customer wants to change it, use a new tool or stay on an older tool.

    Reporting is a bit complicated. They have a standard report, but if I don't want to use that, I have to use the Excel reporter.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used it for the start of the implementation at our organization using Quality Center versions: 8, 9, 10, and now, we're on 11.5.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We host it in-house, so basically we don't have any bad downtime. It runs mostly 24/7, so Quality Center is pretty good with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    So far, it hasn't been an issue.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I would give them a high score as they do a pretty good job.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    In the Quality Center, there's a tool, which we started with, QuickTest Pro. From there, we started to use QuickTest Pro, later we introduced and evaluated it. It looked like the situation we needed.

    However, we wanted tracking. We started with QuickTest Pro, but now we're doing this, which includes a lot of the different areas, like it handles the workflow and/or agile and involving many necessary departments.

    How was the initial setup?

    I was involved in the initial setup. I installed configure, manager, and the patch providing user access, though now we have a team.

    The setup is straightforward. It's not hard to set up. We even used the multi-complicated one because we didn't want have the database alone.

    What other advice do I have?

    To someone looking at Quality Center, I would tell them: It's a good tool to use and the support is good. However, if you want a fancy and modernized tool with a fancy outlook, then Quality Center is not a good tool for you.

    Most important criteria when choosing a vendor: personal style. I want to know who will be continually knowledgeable.

    • They know what they are selling.
    • They respond back quickly with accurate information.

    If someone talks to me, and I try a few times, but I cannot get clear information from them, I may disqualify this vendor completely.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user470463 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Quality Assurance Software Management at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Allows us to more accurately document our actual versus expected test results
    Pros and Cons
    • "It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
    • "I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features of ALM are in the new upgraded version of 12.53. We're able to more accurately document our test results, our actual versus our expected results, with the new screenshot functionality. That is the most useful part of the tool for me right now. Of course, we use it as our testing repository, and it's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Because we can trend repeatable results, we can look at trends of things that are continuously working well, and things that continuously get broken within the software development process. So it helps us improve our testing quality.

    What needs improvement?

    Sprinter, I think, is a good part of this ALM tool, but it has some limitations for us. Based on the type of software we use - we have some web based applications and also some power built applications - not able to capture all the objects, or the way that we develop our software. We're not able to use it as much as we would like to. So Sprinter would be something I would like to see better integrated with the different types of technologies used by the software companies.

    I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers, to make sure they understand how to use the tool. Do they really understand how they're using it? Why they're using it. So, for me, that would useful.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    For us, so far, it's been pretty stable. Because we have such a ginormous amount of historical data, we've had a little bit of an issue with performance. We were working on copying and creating a new database for that because we have products that we use, FDA regulated products, and we can't get rid of those testing results. So we have to keep them for the life of the product.

    So of all of the things that we've experienced, or had issues with, it would be the amount of data we're able to store, because we have to keep everything.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    That would go to what I just mentioned above. We're looking at ways to improve being able to capture more results without impacting our products.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I haven't used tech support because we have a couple of different layers within the business unit. So I have people that I can go to, and then those people go to tech support. So it is utilized on a different level, just not by me.

    What other advice do I have?

    When selecting a vendor to work with, the most important criteria are flexibility, availability, and scalability.

    I would say it's a good tool. You have to invest the time into learning the different ins and outs of the tool, and become educated on it. I think it can scale as much as you allow it to, but you have to put the time into learning what it has to offer.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user739560 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior manager IT at a transportation company
    Vendor
    Enables us to tie together our requirements and testing and access years of back data

    What is most valuable?

    All the modules that we have in ALM, one of them is the test module. No better tool in the market than ALM because the foundation is what you see, it's been in the market for so long. I really like the test module.

    But it's not only limited to the test module. It is the entire application that's a management tool. So we use it for requirements as well. And the link is between your requirements and your test waves and test plans, and everything is in there. So it's a pretty good tool.

    How has it helped my organization?

    If you don't use any tool to manage your application people will - like some teams we have who use Microsoft Word documents to do their requirements, and Excel sheets to plan their test cases, and write the test case and then execute and store it. In the long run, that is not going to be helpful because this is a structured way of exhibiting your development. That is what had been missed.

    So when we started using ALM in our organization - we'd been using QC for so long - when we finally started using ALM and we tied the requirements module to the testing module, that definitely benefited. It's because we can show a lot of data in there and now we can link to some 15 years of back data. Most of the applications are there from so long, so we still need to do the core functionality test. But we don't need to redesign and we don't need to search for Excel sheets. We know exactly who ran it, when they ran it, how the execution happened.

    What needs improvement?

    We do have some suggestions on reporting. Most of the time we need to download data and then we create reports ourselves. If there was a little bit better reporting available that would be great. The reporting is the one thing that we definitely want them to do more on.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Yes and no. Once in a while we'll have some bugs and they will fix them, but other than that it's pretty stable.

    We have assessed ALM right now to be pretty stable. I don't see too many things that are missing in ALM right now.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is good. So far we have not had any issues with scalability. For the last three years we were using it as SaaS. Before that, for a while we had on-prem, but after moving to SaaS we have never had any problems. We run around 300 projects, we have about 100 projects which are light. We've got, at most, 100 users at any given time.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    We've used it multiple times. One of the reasons is the SAP tab. There is this plug-in that connects with SAP, and whenever we do an upgrade or something we need to test with the SAP tab, and the software has been very helpful in doing that.

    I already know the response that we get from support. We have a dedicated CSO who engages whenever we need something, when we sat we need this report, we need that data, then he will definitely immediately give us that.

    How was the initial setup?

    No. It's been there about three years. I wasn't part of the team at that time.

    What other advice do I have?

    If you are using ALM, you had best educate your users to use the entire solution, not only the testing module or not only requirements module, because you will have way more benefit using the entire tool. It is designed to supplement the entire lifecycle and will definitely improve your productivity and traceability. If you use bits and pieces of the tool then the whole intention of developing the tool is not fully utilized. So use entire module, all the modules in ALM.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user742101 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user742101Associate Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User

    Overall an apt review, will just differ on the points on reporting.
    With the advent of Business views, reporting has become very easy. Also, almost any type of report,in any format(Tables/Graphs/Pie charts) you can create in Dashboard as well as Business view.

    it_user739542 - PeerSpot reviewer
    AVP Quality Assurance at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
    Vendor
    The camera makes it easier to capture evidence as a user tests. It's not intuitive to use, which is a problem with business users.
    Pros and Cons
    • "The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
    • "It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera. It allows us to take the test evidence, and it makes it easier for the user, especially the business user, to capture evidence as they test.

    How has it helped my organization?

    For a test management department, and we are highly audited, by the way, it allows us to have a single repository for all our projects where we do tests, as one go-to place for our test evidence. It has a go-to place for us to generate reporting, retain results, and be able to share it.

    What needs improvement?

    I have to say I'm not a huge fan of ALM. I think it's the best out of some of the not-so wonderful tools out there. The example that I usually give people is, if you're an IT person and you use a tool, you know that right click always does similar things. You know that there's functions that from one application to another mean the same thing or has the same features and functionalities. ALM doesn't work that way. I don't think it's a difficult tool to use, but it does need someone to be first trained on it, and then you have to use it a few times before it kind of sticks.

    If you use it once, but then you go away and you come back, let's say a few months later, you have to get a refresher course. So it's like a computer application, there are certain functions which are: F1 is Help. Control is something else, and so on.

    It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have had a few unplanned downtimes. There's been situations where we're not able to access the tools.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability, again going back, we're limited by the number of licenses that we have. If we want to have more projects, from our understanding, we just have to purchase additional licenses or purchase additional access for projects.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We have definitely used tech support, and the skill level varies (this is before the Micro Focus integration). When we were trying to figure if QC SaaS can work with Windows 10, it took us three weeks before tech support finally realized that they missed a patch on their end, and it cost us three weeks of wasted time. The IT support even said, "We're waiting for you guys to get synced up on your side," before we could do anything.

    Tech support has the knowledge and skill, but it's not consistent.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I previously had used QC at a different company. I know I need a test management tool. When I joined the company, we already had this one, but I wanted to move to SaaS, because I needed something that was not on-premise based.

    How was the initial setup?

    I was involved in moving us from the client to the SaaS and it was painful. We were on QC 10, and we had to move to QC SaaS. Because we're a bank, we have a ridiculous amount of firewalls.

    So, we could not install QC SaaS and our tech support team didn't understand how to get it installed. Therefore, one of my team members had to figure out all of the nuts and bolts, then the HPE tech support was also slow in helping us. It actually took us many months to finally go from QC 10 to QC SaaS. I'm actually close to the end of my three-year license, and I'm seriously like, "Do I stay? Do I move?"

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I did look at other solutions, and I didn't accept those only because the camera feature was very important to us. The other solutions that I looked at really didn't have the camera feature yet.

    It was Zephyr, SmartBear, and ALM. I have some business users who are also very conservative, and for me to move them away from something they're very familiar with, I have to have some very compelling additions and functionalities to give them in order to say it was worth the effort to retrain them on something else.

    What other advice do I have?

    I had a demo recently that was actually for Octane, but in that demo, I found out about a couple of tools that I actually have access to now that I didn't know about before. One of them was a JIRA integration and the other was a way to create manual task steps, actually just stepping through the application, which could be automated.

    I was like, "Wait, I'm near the end of my three-year license, and I'm just now about this?" I was like, "I could have been using this?"

    So, those are the new tools I'm looking at, and it actually came up because, as I said, we're renewing our license, and when my rep was talking to me to find out what was my interest, part of it is, "Well, I need your integration." He's like, "Oh, we think we have that." I was like, "Really?"

    For anyone looking at this product, I would definitely have them look at other tools, too, and make some comparisons. I would say to them, "Hey, here's how we had to deal with it, and here's what works for us and what doesn't." For the other tools, since we don't have firsthand experience, I could only suggest that they actually do some research.

    Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: response and customer service. Support is very important. Then obviously, still getting a good value for what I'm spending. The product at least needs to be comparable to the other tools that are available on the market.

    I have to say that I definitely was looking to move away from HPE initially when I took over the department, because we were getting no support from HPE at all. However, HPE, because we're small in comparison to their other customers, shunted us off to a third party, their reseller, which may ultimately have been a good thing for HPE (now Micro Focus) as well as for us, because we finally got some attention.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user571905 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user571905Sales at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
    MSP

    Hello, you might have a look at codeBeamer ALM

    PeerSpot user
    Assistant Director Quality Assurance at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    A single tool for all our needs including ​​requirements, testing, and defect management

    What is most valuable?

    Requirements, testing, defect management, all integrated in one solution.

    How has it helped my organization?

    In my previous organization, various tools like Excel and other open source test management tools were used. This was causing issues in sharing Test Management data. Once HPE ALM was brought in as a single solution, and data from all other tools were migrated to it, there was a single tool for all needs.

    What needs improvement?

    Agile, Devops.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Seven to eight years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    Agile, Devops

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Need of a single solution for all needs.

    How was the initial setup?

    Not straightforward, it was a complex architecture.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Expensive tool which could become an overload on the budget in the future.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Bugzilla.

    What other advice do I have?

    Be aware of the cost aspect, it is very expensive.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Subject Matter Expert at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Cross project customization helps to maintain standards for fields and workflows throughout projects
    Pros and Cons
    • "Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
    • "Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."

    What is most valuable?

    Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects.

    Traceability feature really allows you to maintain linkage between all the test artifacts, starting from Releases>Requirements>Test Coverage>Test Execution>Defects. ALM allows you to maintain complete end-to-end process.

    Business Views has really come in handy for all users, as different kinds of reports can be created very easily and published to all the stakeholders.

    Synchronizer add-in has allowed us to integrate Microfocus ALM to other third-party tools like JIRA, ClearCase and ClearQuest, and helps to eliminate the isolation between these tools.

    ALM has brought great collaboration among the team members.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Helps to maintain all the test artifacts in one place as a central repository where all teams can contribute and collaborate with each other.

    What needs improvement?

    Dashboard

    • Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in
    • Availability of built-in report related to Defect Removal efficiency
    • Availability of built-in report for calculating Defect Density
    • Availability of built-in report for end-to-end traceability
    • Availability of reports specific to Automation projects.

    Management- Libraries

    • Ability to include Test Set data in Libraries so that Test Set execution can be transferred to other projects using Library functionality

    Test Lab

    • Ability to upload Test Execution results from Excel to HPE ALM

    Test Plan

    • Ability to maintain Manual and Automation projects in single HPE ALM project
    • Composite execution of manual and automated scripts would be helpful

    Defects

    • SLA-related ability for defect module where ALM would send automail to stakeholders for the defects which have not been updated in a long time

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using the solution for 10 years now.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    ALM is quite a stable application. We had some issues during the initial setup but it's been stable since, due to right level of competency/expertise we have in the organization to maintain the ALM setup.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No scalability issues.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is not that great. We really need to push to get HPE support to provide a resolution for technical issues. Tech support needs to improved now, as it has deteriorated badly.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    HPE ALM was our first choice.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup was not that complex.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    HPE has always been flexible in terms of pricing and licensing, but we are a bit concerned with the fact that it is now in the hands of Micro Focus and things may change.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    Think about the below before you start implementing this product:

    • What’s the total user base you are expecting to on-board?
    • How many projects/countries/entities are going to be on-boarded to the platform, and then design the hardware configurations accordingly.
    • Do you have any other tools which need to be integrated with this product? Is there any ready-to-use integration already available or do you need to build it from scratch?
    • Note that this product does provide the ability to control user access and provides security.
    • Talk to your network security team and check if anything specific needs to implemented along with this product, like dual factor user provisioning, reverse proxy, TLS 1.1, TLS 1.2. Does this product support all these?
    • Check the organization plan in terms of roll-out of latest Operating Systems, Browsers. Does this product support those latest OSs, browsers, versions, etc?
    • Hire a HP ALM administrator expert who can guide you to implement the product in the right manner.
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Oluseye Oyede - PeerSpot reviewer
    Oluseye OyedeSoftware Quality Assurance & Testing Specialist, MTN Nigeria Ltd at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User

    I love the requirement traceability functionality of ALM, make it good for reconciliation of test cases

    See all 2 comments
    it_user377415 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Sr Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    With the BPT module, we can update test cases in less time as would otherwise take to update two or three business components.

    What is most valuable?

    The Business Process Testing module and approach to testing in QC is its most valuable feature.

    How has it helped my organization?

    For manual test cases, we need to write test case each time and if any update or CR comes then we need to go to each test case and update, which is very time consuming. But, with BPT we can update it in less time as would otherwise take to update two or three business components. After a refresh, it will automatically update the whole test set, which is over 100 test cases.

    What needs improvement?

    I would like to see a bit of improvement in its look and feel.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We've used it for seven years.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    There were issues with the deployment.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We had some issues with the stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We had some issues with the scalability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    8/10

    Technical Support:

    8/10

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Earlier I used Mantis, but it was not user friendly and had no functionality apart from defect tracking. But HP QC is defect tracking by default. Test Case Execution tracking and reporting functionality which will serve all purposes for testing processes.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was not complex.

    What about the implementation team?

    We used a vendor team with in-house machines for the implementation.

    What other advice do I have?

    For testing processes and improvements, I would suggest you use this product. But, if you're looking at cost, then that might be a concern, but no doubt it is the best tool for testing.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
    Don IngersonQA Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
    ExpertTop 5Consultant

    Nice review Gourav. I did have a question. How was the learning curve for QA team members for learning BPT module of QC when your company originally started using BPT?

    PeerSpot user
    Team Lead at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
    Consultant
    Easy To Track Test Cases' Automation Status

    What is most valuable?

    • Entering requirements and mapping of requirements with test cases.
    • Writing and execution of test cases and reporting defects.
    • Generating customized reports.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Our organization has developed a product for automating test cases and we track the test cases' automation status with HPE ALM. It includes a column which made it easy to track them.

    What needs improvement?

    It needs a feature for scheduling of automation scripts to run automatically. This feature would be very useful.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Five years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Quick response.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We checked out other tools like JIRA and Rally which also have good features, but HPE ALM has is user friendly.

    How was the initial setup?

    Straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    No suggestions.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    As long as you can afford it, go for this product. Otherwise, there are less expensive or open source products with almost the same features.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user2862 - PeerSpot reviewer
    VP of IT at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Unable To Run Test Automation On The Saas Platform

    What is most valuable?

    • Test Plan: Script storage and update.
    • Test Lab: Execution planning and results storage.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Because of global test documentation, testing can be resourced most effectively each test cycle (including outsourcing).

    What needs improvement?

    Integration with test automation never worked properly. We were never able to run test automation on the SaaS platform. We ended up having to use QC 10 for test automation. We went through several "fixes", upgrades, etc., and were never able to fix the problem.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    My guess would be 18 years at least.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Use of test automation with ALM is inherently unstable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The parts that work seem to scale very well. But our use of test automation appears to have exceeded what this tool can do with that functionality.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Tech support is very, very poor. There is no coordination between product groups, you have to repeat the same information multiple times, features that are "fixed" end up breaking in the next release, and releases and upgrades do not fix problems as promised.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No.

    How was the initial setup?

    We have installed multiple versions and upgrades over the years and it can be very cumbersome.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It can be expensive to own.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    Can be beneficial for large companies, but check out alternatives. Some of them might fit the bill for less money.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user678 - PeerSpot reviewer
    QA Expert at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Use The REST API To Automate QA Reporting And Integrate QA Information Into the Development Build Process, However The Initial Setup is Extremely Complex

    What is most valuable?

    REST API. It lets me do what I need to do, instead of what HPE Quality Center does on its own.

    How has it helped my organization?

    By using the REST API, I have automated QA Reporting, and integrated QA information into the development build process.

    What needs improvement?

    Its performance is horrible, and it's unnecessarily complex, which means the local site administrators set it up to be used in very unproductive ways.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    10 years (including earlier versions).

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Yes. While most of it is introduced by our poor local setup, that is a direct outcome of my complaint mentioned in the need for improvement.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Yes, but again this mostly do with how we implemented it locally. Again, it is an outcome of the issue that the local site administrators set it up to be used in very unproductive ways.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    On the lower end.

    I have a lot of trouble getting to useful information – on the HP site, and with their technical support. Though I’m far removed from interacting with HP support directly now (at one point I was on the local support team for HPE QC, but now I’m just a user within my company).

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Yes – HPE QC is much better than anything else I have seen.

    How was the initial setup?

    Extremely complex, and unnecessarily so. Main reason was HPE QC doesn’t do a good job of explaining how you can keep it simple and still get the same job done. The tool is ready to do a great job, its how it gets implemented that is the real problem.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I understand that it’s still extremely expensive.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Yes – PVCS Tracker, Compuware’s Track Record, SmartBear, and JIRA. Some groups use JIRA for defect management (in addition to its development usage), but local JIRA usage is just as messed up in its setup that it just recreated the problems which we have with HPE QC instead of solving them.

    What other advice do I have?

    Same advice as for any Test Resources Management product: KISS – "Keep it simple, stupid."

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user716562 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test analyst in behalf of Alten at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Plan Your Test Execution Very Thoroughly With Configurations And Setups In The Test Lab

    What is most valuable?

    You can plan your test execution very thoroughly with configurations and setups in the test lab. This is very unique in comparison with other tools.

    What needs improvement?

    To add test cases from the test plan in test lab, the filtering function is not very user-friendly. Comparing the functionality with the querying/filtering functionality from TFS, which is much more user-friendly, it is clearer and the default screen is almost full-sized,

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Two years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I do not know.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have worked at other companies, I cannot choose between solutions.

    How was the initial setup?

    No, I was not the admin of this application, and the setup itself is not complex, nor very straightforward (but somewhere in the middle).

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I would not recommend this product If you have a small organization, which would not use this tool very often.

    The pricing is very expensive, but it covers a full solution, which means, you will use a lot of functionalities and gain in time and efficiency.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user552447 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test Manager
    Vendor
    ​It Forced Different Parties To Collaborate Better Yet There Were Stability Issues.

    What is most valuable?

    Defect management, because it has allowed me to manage the defects throughout its lifecycle (from being opened to its resolution – closed); who is assigned to it and working on it, what are the issues, and why it is being held up. It gave valuable metrics.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It forced different parties to collaborate better. It gave a lot of information to team members, also additional information to stakeholders in the defect summary, and items to highlight, when needed.

    What needs improvement?

    At the time, the dashboard never really worked.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Three to five years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Yes, there was a problem in stability when the number of test cases grew at a very fast pace. Adding more memory, backup, and restore remedied the instability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I can’t remember any.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    On a scale of one to 10: five.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Yes, it was forced on the company. Change was to facilitate management of defects between multiple parties.

    How was the initial setup?

    It was straightforward because the test manager was consulted on how to go about setting it up.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is very pricey. To be fair, it is geared for enterprise use. Unless the company and the decision maker (who would say “yes” to paying for it) is convinced on benefits of the product, it is not a go. Medium businesses would not buy into it.

    What other advice do I have?

    Do the cost benefit analysis, and understand how the product/tool is a solution rather than a nice-to-have because it is flashy. It should fit the organization’s size and needs.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user566988 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test Manager
    Vendor
    Centralized And Unified Repository Of Requirements And Testing Artifacts In Real Time

    What is most valuable?

    Test planning, Test Execution, and Defect Tracking, as these are the code artifacts/deliverables for testing.

    How has it helped my organization?

    A centralized and unified repository of requirements and testing artifacts with access across geographies in real time, which improved efficiency and efficacy of application lifecycle management, including integration of Test Automation tool (HPE UFT tool).

    What needs improvement?

    • Integration with other open source test automation tools such as Selenium WebDriver.
    • Dashboard reporting including test plan versus test execution progress (overall and module-wise), forecasting test planning or test execution progress based on the past progress run rate.
    • More options to slice and dice/analyze defect trends, e.g. open defects count/numbers component wise, open defects count/numbers linked to Test Case IDs, defects linked or converted to change requests (CRs), etc.
    • For Agile SDLC support, option to define sprints or iterations, effort estimation, release planning and sprint planning and tracking.
    • Ease of reuse of Test Automation scripts for performance testing with HPE LoadRunner integration.
    • Mobile Testing support with option to assign/mark test cases for mobile testing with mobile device specification of OS, make, screen size, integration of mobile testing on Cloud e.g. Perfecto Mobile.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Two years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Nine on a scale of one to 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Had used Quality Center and Test Director in the past and HPE ALM is much more enhanced and useful.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is more secure and procedural.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Pricing may be a factor prompting a look at competitor products and differentiators or open source options with limited product features. Licensing could leverage combo packs with HPE ALM such as HPE UFT, HPE LoadRunner, etc, as well as continued usage of product post-expiration of license without upgrade and technical support.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    Get input regarding the evolving core customer's unmet needs to help choose the right solution.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Vendor
    Helps In Managing Defects But Technical Support Is Weak.

    What is most valuable?

    The Defect Module helps the project team to track the defects in a structured and manageable way until defects closure.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Helps in terms of managing defects easily.

    What needs improvement?

    The technical support from the vendor is weak, as I believe the back end script support for the tool is not easy to access and modify by the customer.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    12 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    So far fine.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Not good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No.

    How was the initial setup?

    It depends on which version. The upgrade from version 9 to version 11 was not a straightforward upgrade because the whole platform changed. So the upgrade was a manual project and it took the organization a few months to upgrade all thousand projects.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Depends on company direction.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    Compare with other test management tools to see their benefits. We did compare with JIRA. Every tool has its own pros and cons. It depends on the organization's needs.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user349722 - PeerSpot reviewer
    IT Manager of Operations at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    Seamless Validation Testing Efforts From Requirements, Though Setup May Be Complex.

    What is most valuable?

    The biggest benefit is it’s a seamless way for demonstrating the validity of the testing effort from requirement: test planning, execution, and ultimately, reporting.

    How has it helped my organization?

    When I first arrived, everything was manual, no single process, etc. At this point, I set up a standard testing practice utilizing this tool for all testing. It allows for test management to be seen by senior leadership.

    What needs improvement?

    Reporting.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Over 15 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    A seven out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Not relevant.

    How was the initial setup?

    It could be complex depending on the setup. However, I have done this for a number of years and do not have any issues with it.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is expensive.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Yes. Micro Focus, IBM Rational, and Spectra.

    What other advice do I have?

    It is the standard upon which all products are gauged.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user133815 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Service Manager at a tech company with 501-1,000 employees
    Vendor
    Provides A Centralized Means Of Accessing Data, Monitoring Progress, And Creating A Singular View Of Test Status.

    What is most valuable?

    The test generation ability, coverage reporting, and risk prioritization. From a test and defect management perspective, there are few that can compare for delivery in a traditional/waterfall project).

    How has it helped my organization?

    For our clients it provides a centralized means of accessing data, monitoring progress, and creating a singular view on the test status within the business. A number have used it to perform comparative analysis to determine the resultant cost saving and benefits achieved as a result of using the application, and determining process improvement.

    What needs improvement?

    The product could do with more native integration for agile projects, a greatly reduced cost model and closer integration with products that are non-HP.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    On and off for various customers for 10 years (i.e. going back to when it was Mercury Quality Center).

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Not normally.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No. This is an enterprise application and scales accordingly.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Seven out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We use multiple solutions depending on the needs of our client at the time.

    How was the initial setup?

    Straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    HPE is constantly updating its licensing to be competitive, but as a whole the pricing for ALM is very high for the local market and, as such, we see a larger adoption overseas.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Yes.

    What other advice do I have?

    Perform the recommended due diligence when adopting any new tool and ensure that the tool adoption correctly addresses the problem being experienced. This is a good tool and if correctly implemented will provide a solution to a number of delivery focused issues within a business.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user715137 - PeerSpot reviewer
    QA Analyst at a legal firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Improved Our Ability To Share Reports Which Are Understandable To All Levels Of Business.

    What is most valuable?

    What I love about it is that it can be used for the entire lifecycle (from requirements to release) and the dashboard is great for reporting.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The organization I am currently with does not use ALM. I recently moved. At AMC, we began using it during my tenure. When I got there, it was shelfware and they were using spreadsheets. ALM improved our ability to share reports which were understandable to all levels of business. Also having all the bugs for all the projects in one place instead of in a spreadsheet allowed more visibility of issues to all teams. Having test cases in ALM also helped us with spending less time doing rework. Being able to reuse the tests instead of creating new tests saved time.

    What needs improvement?

    The product could be more user-friendly. It's pretty easy when you know what to do, but it's not intuitive learning that all the features are available. For example, it’s not obvious that you can update a set of test cases with multi-select cut/paste. This was not available in its previous versions.
    A lot of people also think all you get is what you see out-of-the-box. A lot of inexperienced users don’t know almost everything is configurable.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    16 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I rarely needed any as I am an expert administrator.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Yes, spreadsheets. We switched because we grew from three people to 10 and needed a tool. ALM was one most of the team had used at other companies.

    How was the initial setup?

    Complex. There are many steps to follow to set everything up for an upgrade, and if you make a mistake, it's catastrophic.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is definitely overpriced. Most of the cost is for support that you rarely need if you have an onsite admin.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    No.

    What other advice do I have?

    It's better suited as an enterprise tool that can support the licensing cost, instead of for a small shop.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Senior Technical Test Analyst at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Consultant
    Tests and test flows are organized properly. Notifications to developers/testers is also a plus

    What is most valuable?

    I have used HPE ALM before and the feature which I loved the most is the ability to create Excel reports and inject macros to format your exported file/report.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Tests and test flows are organized properly.

    Notifications to developers/testers is also a plus!

    What needs improvement?

    Probably more fields to customize.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Almost nine years, and I've been working it for 10 years now.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    I have no experience setting up the server. I have only been an admin.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The product is pretty stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    Customer service is good. They respond on time to inquiries and requests.

    Technical Support:

    The technical guys at HPE are good and knowledgeable on the solutions provided.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have no experience using other test management softwares.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup is complex when you want to customize the product.

    What about the implementation team?

    In-house.

    What was our ROI?

    We didn't look through the ROI of using this product. We look more into the ROI of automated tests.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Pricing is high compared to other solutions.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We're looking into using JIRA, but skills-wise we have more resources which are knowledgeable in using HPE ALM.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Sr. Test Automation Engineer with 201-500 employees
    Real User
    You get the most value using all modules from Management to Defects.

    What is most valuable?

    ALM: You cannot just say one feature is most important. You get the most value
    using all modules from Management to Defects. When you use the tool end-to-
    end, you can pull efficient project reports (especially scorecards) from the
    Dashboard. So everything is integrated and only then you can evaluate the tool
    fairly. ALM is very flexible and each module can be used independently, but
    when you do that you are only using the tool as storage, not as a test
    management tool.

    UFT: It became much more stable tool in terms of object recognition over the
    years. It is easy to use as long as the user has basic software development
    knowledge and understands that the software automation process is not just a
    record/playback.

    How has it helped my organization?

    ALM: We currently successfully manage all testing projects due to ALM’s invaluable capabilities, which are listed below:

    • Built on best practices with a flexible structure, organization, and documentation for all phases of the application testing process.
    • Serves as a central repository for all testing assets and provides a clear foundation for the entire testing process.
    • Establishes seamless integration and smooth information flow from one stage of the testing process to the next.
    • Supports the analysis of test data and coverage statistics, to provide a clear picture of an application’s accuracy and quality at each point in its life-cycle.
    • Supports communication and collaboration among distributed testing teams.
    • Reduces time needed to create test execution summary reports.
    • Reduces the time needed to write and execute manual tests with HPE Sprinter tool.
    • Users can capture their actions automatically as steps in a formal test.

    UFT: We save time executing smoke and regression tests. We also use UFT to create test data.

    What needs improvement?

    I would like to see better Reporting functionality especially more sophisticated graphs, for example Actual vs. Planned or high level progress graphs using indicators like traffic lights. I would like to see more sophisticated or flexible Dashboard views, such as editing and resizing. I use scorecards and pull them into the Project Reports using customized templates. Scorecards can only be refreshed from the Site Admin, which then test leads has to depend on the ALM Admin to refresh the reports if needed after the scheduled auto run. There should be ability to refresh scorecards (execute KPIs) from the project itself or give more frequent auto refresh option like even every 5 min. This is a really burden on the team.

    I would like to see Requirements mapped to test steps so we can combine multiple requirements validation in to one test case but map the verification steps to the associated requirements, so if the step fails only fails one requirement not all. When we are operating in an Agile world we do not have time to write test cases to capture one-to-one coverage. I know ALM allows many-to-many mapping but we cannot get true requirement pass/fail status if we use many-to-many option. Test configuration option kind of on the right path, but can only be use for data driven test cases, I cannot add design steps. If we can add design steps to a subset of a main test using Test Configuration option, I think we may be able to differentiate individual requirement that was failed without failing all the requirements mapped to the main test case.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have used this solution for 17 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    In terms of technical support, I usually get solutions to my issues. I did not have any issues to call technical support for a long time.

    How was the initial setup?

    If you follow the instruction, the setup is straightforward. It definitely requires an experience user to do the installation and setups, especially for upgrades.

    What other advice do I have?

    I always used ALM and UFT. However, I had training and evaluated IBM JAZZ tools.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
    Lead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate
    Real User
    Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
    Pros and Cons
    • "So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
    • "There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."

    How has it helped my organization?

    We identified an object that was supposed to have a width of 30 characters, but instead had 100,000. No manual tester would have found it, forcing developers to take a second look at all objects which uncovered similar size issues.

    While my experience tells me successful automation projects are at 70% coverage of manual test cases, we have been able to hit well into the 90% range of .Net automation with this tool.

    What is most valuable?

    So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system.

    And my second impression was "Oh man, why does it still do THAT?"

    Let's review the good stuff:

    VBscript language -Easy to learn, surprisingly powerful and extendable.

    What I will call the "PDM.DLL feature" provides a list view of any object property and methods at run-time from the code as well as the two other windows.

    Built in Excel Datatables for Data-driven design

    Revamped beautiful HTML results report with screen and movie capture

    Terminal Emulator automation.

    Modular design (through functions, ALM components and Flows)

    Launch through Jenkins brings CI to the test automation development team.

    Can leverage Windows API calls as well as custom AutoItScript for enhanced features.

    The wide range of supported current and legacy web technologies, desktop apps, and WebServices testing is by far the most valuable feature.

    Even in the case where technology is only partially supported, being able to customize out-of-the-box object methods is another time saver.

    For example, we recently started to investigate automation of an AngularJS application. The problem was record/playback (UFT 12.54) did not work on it. However, the Object Spy correctly adds objects to the Object Repository. In addition Descriptive Programming worked from our custom framework. We had a basic login/navigate/verify Proof of Concept test operational with AngularJS Buttons, Links and Images quickly. Minor custom coding was required to override .Set methods of WebEdit objects, and more will be needed to support it's Angular WebTable objects. Totally doable for an experienced level team or user.

    What needs improvement?

    There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard.

    #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts.

    Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis.

    Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project.


    #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects.

    Or HP could skip to option #3...


    #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.)


    #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review.


    #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The product is surprisingly stable. For the flaws that I mention, if stability was an issue we would not have been using it for the better part of two decades.

    The only time that the product gets unstable is when you try to do wicked advanced coding. For example, when you are trying to execute dynamic code strings with the Execute command that might not have been generated correctly. My years of experience tells me that if something is going flaky, then it's the developer's fault (me) and not the tool's fault.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is quick and easy implemented through a framework. Let's say we write a custom function

    VerifyValue (oObj, sExpectedValue)

    that can compare the expected value, string or integer, to an object's actual Value property. By adding the function as a .VerifyValue method to all WebEdit class object, the functionality is available to all current and future edit field objects regardless if they are in the repository or programmatic descriptions. And it is done with just a single line of code called RegisterUserFunc()

    Now Let's say we now want to extend the verification to include value falls within an expected range? Add the code to the VerifyValue() function and all fields support the new functionality.

    Scaling to new pages with new objects is not an issue either. The tool allows advanced users to design frameworks that can identify objects on the fly from "Plain English" descriptions ("OK LINK") without using the Object Repository. This may remind you of a Gherkin/Cucumber approach and the tool is certainly flexible enough to design just such a framework.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Orasi's technical support is an A+.

    HPE's direct technical support is okay.

    Having an issue getting UFT to work with your technology stack? Some versions of QTP used to include an oft overlooked document called the Product Availability Matrix (aka the PAM) telling users exactly which Technology version worked with HP's UFT tool versions. Unfortunately, due to a inexplicable "horse-and-cart" decision, HP has chosen to remove this document from UFT 14.0 install and provide access to it only AFTER users have purchased the product. So I have to buy it to learn how to make it work with my technology stack? Wait, what?

    How was the initial setup?

    The install/uninstall of the updates are fast and easy. Many of the no-brainer configuration settings are set up correctly out-of-the-box. To be fair, we do have a 20-page document that walks through all the settings to check.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers.

    Want to take UFT to another level for free? Add AutoItScript calls.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    If Selenium is your thing then make it easy on yourself with LeanFT, aka UFT Pro. This gets you the easy object recognition of UFT, in Java, plus execution of concurrent test cases in multiple browsers which is a trick standard UFT does not do.

    I am always downloading and evaluating other products. SmartBear TestComplete is the next closest option.

    What other advice do I have?

    Take tool training by someone with years of experience.

    HP, Orasi and RTTS all offer the level of training that gets you to the advanced state quickly.

    And if you might be longing for the IDE toolset that Microsoft offers in Visual Studio, then look at Test Design Studio from Patterson Consulting to enhance your UFT toolbelt.


    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Varun Srinivasa Murthy - PeerSpot reviewer
    IT Solutions Analyst at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Defect Management is a feature allows us to track the defect status for our projects

    What is most valuable?

    Defect Management: This feature allows us to track the defect status for our project, send the notification to the user via email and all the details about the defects can be maintained for the future reference as knowledge center.

    Graphs and Dashboard: This is one of the top features, by which we can track the status of the project with ease to keep track of project management and executive reporting.

    The live graphs can be exported via public URL's and can be integrated with SharePoint and others as required.

    How has it helped my organization?

    More collaborative, ease of work, and better documentation of all project activities.

    What needs improvement?

    Certainly on the UI part, it has to be improved to make it user-friendly and more presentable.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    More than three years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No issues with scalability.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Technical Support is great and always responsive to solve the issues.

    How was the initial setup?

    Nope, the architecture is simple to implement and scale.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The price is a bit high.

    What other advice do I have?

    Go ahead with this tool. It is for the project management and test execution.

    Do consult a few of the other folks using this tool to understand the tricks.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Srinivasa Chamarty - PeerSpot reviewer
    Project Manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    MSP
    We deal with our test cases and execution, and the mapping is taken care by the product

    What is most valuable?

    Features that support documentation and test results from Requirements through Test Cases to Scripts to Execution results (pass or fail), then to Defects.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Life was made easy by shifting the MS Office documentation to the product. We deal with our test cases and execution, and the mapping is taken care by the product. You pass/fail a test case and product tells you what requirements/features of the product are good to go into production.

    What needs improvement?

    Auto-generation of automation scripts. Integration into the UTF (earlier QTP) has little more scope to improve.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've used this solution for four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    No.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    A nine out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No.

    How was the initial setup?

    Straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Very expensive.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Some Open Source tools, but did not choose them as they lack support.

    What other advice do I have?

    Have a skilled person to do the administration. You will love the ease of reporting that results in.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Managing Director at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
    Consultant
    Allows you to arrange your test data in a systematic manner.

    What is most valuable?

    • Requirements Management
    • Test Management
    • Test Execution
    • Defect Management
    • Business Model
    • Traceability
    • Test configuration
    • Test Parameters
    • Integration with HPE UFT and HPE LoadRunner

    All the options are designed so if you are using this tool for Test Management, then you must have them all enabled for efficient use.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It has basic and advanced facilities that allow you to arrange all of your test data in very well arranged, systematic manner.

    What needs improvement?

    Graphs can be further improved to manage more requirements at a time.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have you used this solution for seven years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We never encountered any issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any issues with scalability. It depends on the number of licenses. If you have them all active at the time, it still responds the same way, which is fast.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We used Excel, but it was so difficult to manage the various Excel files and sheets just like maintaining a register book for your records. ALM allows you to handle them all with just one click.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was straightforward as it it required little knowledge of the server to do a simple server-side installation.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    If we have huge data and more number of users managing the data, then ALM is the best option for our organization. It also applies if your team is distributed, out-sourced or in-sourced.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We did not evaluate other options. I was aware of their earlier version which had a very good market and feedback, I didn't have to waste my time doing a PoC on any other product.

    What other advice do I have?

    You must look to implement the minimum system requirements, Configuration, for the server for optimum and efficient use.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: We deliver training on HPE Testing tools for HPE on their behalf to HPE clients.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Software Development Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
    Vendor
    Customization is the most valuable feature. Other products don't have such a flexible tool.

    What is most valuable?

    Customization is the most valuable feature. I don’t see other products with such a huge and detailed customization feature.

    What needs improvement?

    The Web UI and the Administration Page need to improve. These are not issues, but areas to improve.

    Web UI: In some version (I don’t remember exactly the version number, unfortunately), Web UI was introduced with limited functionalities but it was cool in my opinion. Web UI has a lot of advantages and the main advantage is that the customer doesn’t have to install a big thick client on his machine. Web UI is faster, lightweight and easy to configure compared to the on-premise installation. But for some reason, this functionality (all Web UI) was removed in the next release.

    Administration Page: It doesn’t have any issues. The main idea here is that it was written using old technologies and it would be great to improve/rewrite it using modern technologies. It doesn’t have an impact on the customer, it is more for developers who should support this area.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used this solution for five and a half years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    There were no stability issues.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There were no scalability issues.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is very good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Previously, I have used Redmine and JIRA. Switching to HPE ALM was not my decision, I changed my job.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup was straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Just want to advise to use ALM SaaS in case you don’t want to use ALM all your life. It is cheaper and provides you with all the ALM features but for some period of time. Also, you don’t need to install it manually, the entire environment is already installed.

    What other advice do I have?

    As an advise for developers who will develop such applications I would like to say - always try to support the area in an actual state, i.e., by using modern ideas/technologies if possible. Also, listen to the customer's needs, have flexible customization tools and do not forget about performance.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Process Architect at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Provides a centralized and coordinated view of requirements, tests, and defects. The main barriers of entry are cost and implementation.

    What is most valuable?

    HP ALM is a good tool for a centralized and coordinated view of requirements, tests, defects, and iterations.

    The main barriers of entry are cost and implementation, especially if an enterprise implementation is the best solution

    How has it helped my organization?

    Being able to have one place to review defects, testing progress, and defects was very useful.

    Merging 40 different streams, just for defects, into one solution that had good search and reporting capabilities saved a significant amount of time in coordination, defect management, and by consequence, there was better control of the quality of delivered software.

    What needs improvement?

    The main barriers of entry are cost and implementation, especially if an enterprise implementation is the best solution

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used this solution for eight years in a variety of versions and companies.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    The biggest challenge was finding the appropriate resource balancing for the enterprise release. It is not very clear how that was going to be implemented due to documentation in 2010.

    If there is a need for third-party integration, the documentation is not very good. We were able to integrate with FIT, but it took a very capable programmer to figure out how to do it. Again, this was in 2010. Hopefully, the documentation has improved.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    Customer service was adequate.

    Technical Support:

    Technical support was adequate

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We used a lot of home grown 'tools' and spreadsheets in one location and Lotus Notes in another.

    How was the initial setup?

    In one instance, it was straightforward because anything was better than spreadsheets.

    In the location that used Lotus Notes, there was a significant amount of resistance because of loss of control.

    Neither instance was due to the tool, but it was due to cultural issues.

    What about the implementation team?

    The implementation was done in-house.

    What was our ROI?

    At a Fortune 100 company, we achieved a reduction of 30% of defects in the first year and decreasing percentages the subsequent years.

    The dollar figures were proprietary, but were significant even for an $11 billion dollar revenue company.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The main concern is that there is a significant dollar investment, so do good research to make sure the tool will meet your needs.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We evaluated IBM tools, as well and a couple of Open Source tools.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user669378 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Vice President - Test Management Lead at DBS Bank
    Real User
    This solution has improved collaboration between our test teams
    Pros and Cons
    • "Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
    • "Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"

    What is most valuable?

    • Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects.
    • Customizable Events drive workflow: Saves a few seconds of time when we set default values, customizable dependent lists. When we translate this to hundreds of projects and hundreds of concurrent users, the productivity gains are immeasurable.
    • Traceability: Traceability from Requirement -> Test Plan -> Test Lab -> Test Runs -> Defects.
    • Rich sets of permission settings for different roles.
    • Business Views: It is easier to pull reports for novice users.
    • OTA, REST API: Utility for adding users and massaging data.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It has improved collaboration between our test teams.

    What needs improvement?

    • Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades
    • Support TDD/BDD
    • Adding features like Kanban, project plans, resource utilization, and JIRA’s big picture.
    • Traceability reporting: If HPE can generate a traceability matrix - Traceability from requirement -> Test Plan -> Test Lab -> Test Runs -> Defects.
    • Defects aging report: A look at how long each defect is from the time it is created and how long it has remained at a particular status.
    • Reports to build information: Currently, HPE ALM does not support the copy and paste of test instances.

      • How can we duplicate a test set within a project?
      • How do we copy a test set from one project to another, and also copy the associated test plan along with it?
    • Reports on automation:
      • How do we capture the number of automation test cases as some automation test cases have multiple test cases in each automated test?
        How do we calculate the ROI of automation?
        How do we determine which test cases should be automated, because sometimes the effort of automation does not have a good ROI?
        How do we calculate the ROI of HPE Sprinter if (1) Automated Script generation is used? (2) Mirroring is used?
        How do we know which testcase is created using Sprinter?
    • Requirements coverage reports.
    • Cumulative trending reports for test execution and defects outstanding.
    • Auto-generation of test summary report.
    • Inbuild best practices for fields, such as root cause category.
    • Copy of test sets in the test lab.
    • Upload of test execution results.
    • Offline test defects to third parties and sync upon checking in.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using the service for 18 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution is very stable, if you have the right person to manage it.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution is very scalable, if you have the right person to manage it.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The technical support has been deteriorating since the Mercury days. I would give technical support a rating of six out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We were looking at other solutions, such as JIRA, due to all the issues I have raised.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup was straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    HPE ALM has been sold to Micro-Focus. I am not sure if Micro-Focus will be flexible.

    If no flexibility is provided, you can easily move out in weeks, if you have the right resources.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We evaluated Zephyr, QASymphony, XQual, Perforce, and Rational Quality Manager.

    For integration purposes, we evaluated Tasktop, Orasi, HP Synchronizer, and ConnectALL.

    For automation purposes, we evaluated UFT, Selenium, and Robot.

    What other advice do I have?

    Below is a checklist for others considering a test management solution:

    • CIO sponsorship
    • Number of projects
    • Number of concurrent users
    • Standardization needs
    • Ease of control and management
    • Access rights for individual roles
    • Event driven workflow customization
    • Extending beyond test management to TDD, BDD, test data management, test environment, and CI/CD tools.
    • Focus on where you want to solve each problem and identify relevant tools for each of these.
    • Availability of skilled resources
    • Hiring the right resources to manage: There are easily millions of test management users, but it is not easy to find a true-bred expert.
    • Keep in touch with what’s happening in the industry. You need to be focused and not swayed easily.
    • Know your stuff.
    • Support all your users and make life easier for them.
    • Integration with automation tools, performance tools, security tools, and Jenkins/Bamboo/Team City.
    • Define the test process that ties in with your test management too.l
    • Form a training team to constantly train users.
    • Open API for customization
    • Export of info to MS Excel.
    • Ease of migration.
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user3396 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user3396Team Lead at Tata Consultancy Services
    Top 5Real User

    Cool review

    it_user178353 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Director of Quality Assurance with 501-1,000 employees
    Vendor
    Test tracking eliminated the need to track test executions on a separate application. It is an expensive tool.

    What is most valuable?

    Playback, test tracking, and defect management are the most valuable features.

    Playback made it easy to create automated functional tests that could be reused.

    Test tracking eliminated the need to track test executions on a separate application, such as Excel.

    It provides ease of use, the reporting status and tracking of defects.

    How has it helped my organization?

    I no longer use the product as its price does not fit into my QA budget.

    What needs improvement?

    Its pricing does need to improve. As I recall, when I was working at my previous company, we paid over $100,000 a year plus maintenance. At that time, I could have purchased a RadView selection for that much and reduced the annual maintenance to around $15,000.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used this solution for about 10 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    There were no stability issues.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There were no scalability issues.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Earlier, we used a home-grown, Lotus Notes-based system. Later on, I moved to a position where HPE QC was already being used.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup isn't too easy nor too difficult; I'd put it somewhere in the middle.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    This is an excellent tool for larger companies. It has been my experience that it is not cost-effective in medium or small-scaled companies.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    While at my previous employer, I evaluated other options and recommended moving to a more cost-effective tool. At that time, I recommended RadView.

    What other advice do I have?

    Make sure it fits into your cost structure and consider the annual maintenance cost in your evaluation.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Performance Test Architect and HP ALM Expert at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Consultant
    Some of the valuable features are APIs and dashboards. It has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and expensive license models.
    Pros and Cons
    • "Integration with other HPE products."
    • "The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."

    What is most valuable?

    • Integration with other HPE products
    • APIs
    • Dashboards

    How has it helped my organization?

    Defects and Test management were earlier conducted with the help of Excel sheets. Now, they are tracked in the Quality Center leading to accountability, dashboards, and being tracked in a single place.

    What needs improvement?

    Licensing model: HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models. It is an extremely heavy system application. The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years! I am guessing they are doing this to maintain the same look and feel so that they do not have to get their customers familiar with a new UI. When you compare this system's heavy UI with JIRA or TFS, the difference is evident!

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using this solution from the time it was part of Mercury Corp as a Test Director. That makes it around 17 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Past versions were a pain to use with frequent crashes. The current version also has its own set of problems with HPE deciding to do away with its HTML/Lite version leading to a lot of confusion.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    While getting additional licenses is straightforward, HPE's licensing model makes life difficult with customers having to submit a "non-usage" agreement if they do not want active support for part of the licenses. For example, you have 100 licenses and decide to get an additional 50; later on you want to downscale to 50, you will need to sign a document that says that you will not use those licenses even though you OWN the licenses! We found this extremely irritating and impossible to explain to end customers who were (and still are) irate. Support should not have anything to do with usage!

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is pretty good. However, their SLAs are based on locale, timing, etc.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did not previously use a different solution.

    How was the initial setup?

    HPE has one of the most complicated installations. Upgrades are a nightmare. Even HPE recommends doing a fresh installation and a cut-over.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    HPEs licensing model is inflexible, rigid, and is not customer-centric.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We did not evaluate other solutions.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend going towards another solution unless you have an entire HPE shop. Other similar products offer more features, are lighter, and are very light on the pocket book, too. We are also moving away from this product, primarily due to licensing costs

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user638460 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Account Director at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Vendor
    The most valuable thing is that it handles requirements, tests, and defects in one tool

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable thing about the solution is it handles requirements, tests, and defects in one tool.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Most departments and some of our third-party vendors have access, so HPE ALM can be the single source of truth for what we are doing and how things are going.

    What needs improvement?

    How they organize content could be improved greatly in an out-of-box way, at least as a possibility for the users. The simplistic folder capability for reqs/tests doesn’t lead the users to a very productive method of test management.

    It would be better to have suggested methods such as storing by subject/feature/functional area and to lead users into organizing this way. Then you wouldn’t run into the need to move things around in folders when release schedules/versions change.

    Also, the style by which you document your regression tests is more automatic since you stop copying tests to a new folder for each release.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have used this solution for two years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    There were no issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There were no issues with scalability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The level of technical support is very good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I’ve been around a while and designed a few test management and automation solutions while I was with Motorola. I think our solutions were better, but of course, we had to spend a lot of resources on their creation.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was straightforward, as I’m new to US Cellular and the tool/processes were in place when I got here. We are making some changes to drive improvement, but we are also analyzing how to go agile which isn’t easy.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I think HPE tools are too expensive, but dumping them for shareware tools, like JIRA, Selenium, etc., is also very dangerous and is not a silver bullet.

    What other advice do I have?

    It’s too expensive for most organizations compared to some other tools on the market. I’d look at QASymphony, Borland, and of course IBM, before committing to any of them.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Oluseye Oyede - PeerSpot reviewer
    Software Quality Assurance & Testing Specialist, MTN Nigeria Ltd at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    The report feature has helped me to generate a quality index report. The product creates a database per project and this results in poor disk space management.

    What is most valuable?

    The report feature has helped me to generate a quality index report which is a critical report for management decisions. The report is generated monthly.

    How has it helped my organization?

    There are many reports that are generated monthly from the tools which assist us in making key decisions concerning the quality of software and products.

    What needs improvement?

    The product creates a database per project and this results in poor disk space management, as well as frequent backup and restore. This should be improved upon.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using this solution for four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    There were no issues with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There were no issues with scalability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did not use a different solution previously.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was straightforward.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I suggest organizations should attempt cloud services.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We did not evaluate other options before this one.

    What other advice do I have?

    It is a good product, but it still requires customization.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    QA Expert at a tech consulting company with 51-200 employees
    Consultant
    Allows us to track our manual tests with actual results and screenshots. The Active-X technology requires client-side installations that are difficult to manage.
    Pros and Cons
    • "Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
    • "ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."

    What is most valuable?

    • Requirements sync and traceability: This allows us to see how many requirements have been tested and to show auditors this information easily.
    • Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots.

    How has it helped my organization?

    QC has been invaluable in the past for documenting our testing process, especially when needed for audits.

    What needs improvement?

    The Active-X technology requires client-side installations that are difficult to manage in environments where the tester's PCs are locked down to prevent installs. Test management is too rigidly dedicated to older ways of testing with scripted test cases. More support for newer approaches, such as exploratory testing or behavior driven testing would make QC more relevant to the way testing is done in many current contexts.

    ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers.

    As far as the test structure goes, you are limited to to a step-by-step test case with description, expected result, and actual result for each step by default. This makes it difficult to support an exploratory testing approach with ALM. Of course, much of this part of the tool can be customized, but it still pales in comparison to something like the Test and Feedback tool that Microsoft provides for exploratory testing.

    My understanding is that the newer Agile Manager product is more friendly to exploratory approaches, but I have not used this product yet.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using this solution for 16 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    In terms of stability, the QC client crashes often when attempting to expand a node on a tree. Upgrades are a nightmare and documentation is difficult to understand.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There were no issues with scalability, but I have never managed a large user base.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support has gotten better than it was a few years ago, but Tier-1 seems to just go through the motions of asking questions I've already answered.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have used other solutions, but many do not have the traceability requirements that ALM does.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was highly complex, mostly because of the database setup. Upgrades are even worse, especially if you need to migrate to a new server, since the repository needs to be copied over.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Make sure you get the correct license for your needs. The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only). I have no idea where they get their pricing numbers from, but they seem to always be negotiable.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I have used Oracle's Test Management solution, Zephyr, Bugzilla, TestTrack, JIRA, and others.

    What other advice do I have?

    Be sure to have a DBA available when you install. There have almost always been changes needed to the DB when I have installed the application.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    OATS Engineer-Onsite Consultant at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project
    Pros and Cons
    • "I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
    • "The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."

    What is most valuable?

    I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project. Our complete Agile process of Software development and QA is dependent HPE Quality Center.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It has streamlined communication with business users and technical users whereby business requirements are now tracked on HPE Quality Center.

    Thus, providing clarity with simplicity.

    What needs improvement?

    I've faced a couple of bugs in the product whereby we were not able to open attachments on a particular ticket.

    The session timeout time also needs to be longer in my opinion.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution for close to two years on a daily basis, and it's a wonderful product.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    Not in particular, only certain defects that I've mentioned for the question above regarding areas for improvement.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Certain minor issues such as error in opening attachments linked to a ticket and session timeout issues apart, otherwise the product is stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The product is scalable and consistently delivers the required purpose.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    HPE has dedicated support with this licensed product and they were available for any queries.

    Technical Support:

    Technical issues were resolved based on SR with HP team and the response was good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We have used HPE QC from the onset as the scale of our operation and the throughput of requirements were greater so using other solutions, such as Kanban, were not feasible in our project.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup was straightforward with installation and HPE provides tutorials for advanced modification.

    What about the implementation team?

    It was implemented by our client team and we helped them with the offshore installation.

    What was our ROI?

    The value created was high in our project as were dealing with an application with high public exposure, so the smooth working of tracking requirements and defects definitely gave a good ROI.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Other teams had used Kanban and its visual style of quality control, but it was not a good fit in our project.

    What other advice do I have?

    I highly recommend HPE Quality Center for its simplicity and ease of use whereby Business and Technical teams can see each other's progress and help make better decisions.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
    Don IngersonQA Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
    ExpertTop 5Consultant

    Yes there are situations sometimes like you described. HP is pretty good at releasing patches to fix a situation you described. Have you checked the Support Site to see if there is a patch released for this situation?

    See all 5 comments
    John ONeill - PeerSpot reviewer
    Principle consultant at Active Data Consulting Services Pty Ltd
    Real User
    Being able to quickly and easily compile executables on Multiple Platforms.

    What is most valuable?

    Being able to quickly and easily compile executables on multiple platforms.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Just over 10 years ago, our organization joined the Australian Bill payment scheme, part of the technical requirements involve having to build a COBOL interface to their rules validation program. So we needed to source a COBOL development environment which would allow us to quickly develop and deploy a COBOL interface.

    What needs improvement?

    None that I can think of from my experience, MicroFocus COBOL does everything we need it to do.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    More than 10 years

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    No, we found the support staff at MicroFocus in Australia to be highly knowledgeable and very much of assistance in helping us get our products setup and deployed.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    None, the product has been absolutely rock-solid.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    No, the solution has coped with tens of millions of dollars worth of transactions over the years.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    Very high.

    Technical Support:

    Extremely good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    No.

    How was the initial setup?

    Yes, setup was fairly straightforward. It needed a little help with regards to the license server on the development platform, but once that was sorted out everything was smooth sailing.

    What about the implementation team?

    We developed our solution in-house.

    What was our ROI?

    Substantial, the payment platform is an essential customer service.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    We found the pricing to be very reasonable.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We did, however MicroFocus stood out with their excellent technical support.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Sales at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
    MSP
    Support of the agile methodology is the most valuable feature.

    What is most valuable?

    Definitely support of the agile methodology is the most valuable feature. We have received a lot of feedback from our agile teams that the ALM.NET is not supporting their work and it was really great to see that ALM Octane is fulfilling those needs. But our development and testing teams are looking for the new agile and DevOps deliveries.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We see a double benefit because part of our business is still very legacy-type. We are running the mainframes, and so on, the old kind of solutions, where we pretty much see that, at least for the next year to two to maybe even three years, we will continue using the ALM.NET, as such, maybe even for the functional testing and the UFT, as such. But another team is quickly adopting the agile methodology and there we have hardly seen any validity at all on the Octane for over a year now. We started to implement it the first real project in NND Center, and see good results from that.

    What needs improvement?

    The new solutions that are soon coming for ALM Octane, such as predictivity and requirements management, are very welcome. Those have been missing from the existing solution. So far, we have been able to manage with the other alternative solution and integrations, but I am also really looking forward to that.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    So far, we are very happy with stability, even though knowing that there is quite a lot of new development, especially for the ALM Octane. But so far, so good. I have nothing bad to say.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We are at a very early stage in implementing this solution. But at the moment it looks promising. Although, it is difficult to say how far it goes. But at least, so far, we have started.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    So far, technical support is very good because we have been using HPE products, or the earlier Mercury products, for a long time. We have a quite good collaboration with them. From that kind of background and knowing our kind of working environment and solutions, together with their technical support and help, we have been able to implement these tools in the right way the first time, without trying to invent the wheel on our side.

    How was the initial setup?

    Setup was pretty straightforward. Obviously, we kind of had a bit of discussion internally, because we didn't take a traditional migration from the earlier product. We really started from scratch. That is still somewhat an issue for some of the deliveries, that they don’t want to use the agile method. But we have highly recommended this because they are two different worlds and that it would be better to plan it carefully and not just carry on all the crap from history.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Our development teams are using a lot of open source solutions and other tools, such as JIRA. But, for our business needs and the business purposes, we have seen that HPE solutions are still valid for our business. We need to have backwards traceability. We have to have the capability to show what has been done, what's been going on, and what. In some of the cases, there has been the discussions that, "Yes. We have all this information, but you have to go to the Jenkins, or this and that logs, and it's there." But that's not what the business wants to see. They want to have a high-level visibility on their business. That is why we are still keeping the HPE products, and probably also in the future we'll have them.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
    Paul GrossmanLead QA Engineer at Guaranteed Rate
    Real User

    I have been working with ALM clients on and off for several years back to when it was Mercury's Test Director. While it has improved significantly, I'm disappointed that HP chose to reinvent with Octane rather than inprove the existing product. If they could just get something as simple column sizing right, and stop forcing users to open a overthought panel to simply edit text it would be a vast improvement.

    See all 2 comments
    it_user674346 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test lead at a international affairs institute with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Allows us to do defect resolution. The dashboard was difficult to customize.

    What is most valuable?

    Allows us to do defect resolution from logging to resolution. It gives us an overview of all the defects and prioritization for resolution.

    What needs improvement?

    The dashboard was not working at first. Later on, it was difficult to customize it.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have used it on and off for over four years.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user671379 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Manager at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    The most valuable features are overview, primary requirements, and test cases.

    What is most valuable?

    In ALM, the most valuable features are the overview, the primary requirements, test cases, defects, and traceability. Manual applications handle the regulations, so we must have the tracking capabilities. Even some of the core systems are not allowed to go down. It's very important that we know what we have tested and what is working and what is not working. That we can find out from ALM.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability is no problem.

    How was the initial setup?

    The first time we installed it was a long, long time ago. We bought small, five license versions of Test Director from Mercury in 2007 and it has continuously grown since then. Today we have 600 users and 130 active projects. The environment gets bigger and bigger all the time.

    It's complicated to upgrade. For ALM, we have roughly 600 users. In ALM, we have roughly 130 active projects. So it takes a long time to upgrade. Some of the big projects are 5 GB of data. To migrate that to a new version takes maybe two or three hours, even if we have huge hardware. 

    It's very complicated. We'd gladly like to upgrade to newer versions. We plan to use Octane, but we will not end up in a situation where we have two tools. We would like to, but we must find a smarter way to do some kind of migration. Several of the applications have regulations that we follow and we must be able to track 10 years back. We can't just throw away the data we have in there. 

    If not upgrading ALM, probably they would like to search and would like to find something else. They really need to find a smart way to migrate some part of it. Of course, it's a totally different tool.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We have looked at many alternatives. We have compared ALM to almost everything. We even have JIRA for smaller projects now. ALM and JIRA are two totally different products that are for two totally different needs. 

    For example, we have an on-premises solution of ALM. You have to log into the active directory, so it's not so easy to give to someone outside the company. It's also struggling with different browsers. It's doesn’t work very well on a Mac, for example. The Mac developers and the Mac teams don't like ALM. Now it works much better on Chrome, but we're struggling there as well. They haven't been following the world with browser support. It's problematic to use ALM in Edge, for example.

    But with JIRA, on the other hand, you don't have any requirements. It's easy to set up. It's easy to start up and have your backlog there. But after a while, you figure out what is going on. For maintenance and for testing, you need a plugin for this, you need a plugin for that, and you need a plugin for something else. It's not so easy to get the overview or the helicopter view of it, if you compare that with ALM. But I understand why some like it and it has some kind of need. I hope we can mine that capital when we upgrade to Octane.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user671403 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Team Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    We can define how we structure and execute the tests.

    What is most valuable?

    In our company, the most interesting thing is that ALM can be used for manual testing. The testers can define, by themselves, how they structure the test and then execute it. All the results, both the positive and negative one, are collected. There is easy defect creation.

    On the other side, if you look at it as a project manager, you have to see the results, i.e., the current status of the project.

    Afterwards, if you get an outage, it is important that you can show the regulators that you did a good job, you executed everything, and you went in production with a concrete status, with no big issues or critical errors.

    What needs improvement?

    Our biggest problem with ALM is the version upgrade and especially the migration.

    We have 1400 projects which are active. With the next version upgrade, we expect more than 3000 projects that have to be migrated.

    The migration itself takes months. Here is something that can be improved. It is very important for us, otherwise each migration would kill us.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I’ve been using ALM since 2004.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    If you find the right patch, then it is stable. You can stay with that for years. In our situation, it takes a very long time to roll out a patch and even more time to bring a new release.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    ALM is for sure scalable. We are running 1400 active projects with 15,000 users. Concurrently, we have around 1000 users. If there is a performance issue, we have to find out what the reason is. It is true, in most cases, that we need an additional database server. The application servers, if they have enough power, scale a lot.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    For such an experienced team as my mine, who have been working with the product for more than ten years, it is not that easy dealing with technical support. They often do not have the knowledge that we have. It takes a while to train them so they understand what our issues are and we have to connect to second or third level support.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    The collaboration between HPE and us, especially over the past ten years, has been very good. For that reason, I try to bring in more HPE products, if needed.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user659580 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user659580Managing Director North American Sales and Services Intland Software at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
    MSP

    HPE will always struggle in the ALM for the same reason they struggle in all their enterprise software categories and that is scale. Internally the engineers compete for their products and never really get what they want. ALM is not their only business. Global 2000 companies are better served with a single focused ALM provider that lives and breathes ALM. They become close to their customers allowing for custom upgrades.

    See all 3 comments
    it_user671382 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test Process Manager at a construction company with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    Schedules tests and nightly runs. It creates reports and statistics.

    What is most valuable?

    This is managed by Tieto, our managed service testing partner. We use ALM as a repository for our automated test scripts. This is only the very beginning of the of our testing and managed testing service journey. The reason we use ALM is it's ability to schedule tests and nightly runs. It creates reports and statistics.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We are only starting off now. I'm able to present the progress on our work with the test-information initiative. I can keep a close eye on what's going on to monitor the progress and to schedule the test runs.

    What needs improvement?

    I used Quality Center 5-10 years ago, and I had no issues with it. It is also the de facto industry standard of test management tools. I don’t have enough insight at this point in time. If you ask me in half a year's time, I'm sure I'll have loads more information.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have had no stablity issues so far.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I know for a fact that it's possible to scale it up. We might add another test management tool in-house that's been there for a long time called Rec Test; a Swedish solution.

    It’s a very simple test management and requirement tool. But in the long run, ALM will probably support us better, so that is on my radar to keep track of and see how we can implement them better. This will take a lot of training and convincing of end-users.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I have not used technical support myself, but Tieto is actually doing that in an effort to improve their own framework and initiate a closer relationship with HPE.

    How was the initial setup?

    Setup was a very smoothly written, spot-on theater.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    Not formally, but informally through my own experience. Our use with Rec Test, as well certainly requires more training. It requires a more structured way of working. You really need to set up a good structure, and make sure everyone is following that structure. Otherwise you'll have a mess in no time.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user671376 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Principal Business Analyst at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Valuable for us is having all the data in one place. Having the support for a process of testing.

    What is most valuable?

    Valuable for us is having all the data in one place. Having the support for a process of testing. That professionalizes testing, more or less. You need input, you need a little bit of training as you could use vicarious approaches when you use ALM.

    What needs improvement?

    They can improve, of course on the deployment side, now whether that will be ALM or Octane I don't know. ALM-Octane with its lower footprint is of course easier to roll out and with the old Java client. I don't know if I could take to a roll out point of view. HP is probably stuck with a bit of a beast. We haven't got many areas where we think it can improve now, if we use it in combination with other tools.

    A particular problem area for us is really to improve support for requirements. We come from an environment where everything had procedures for requirements from a business analyst point of view. Having to switch to ALM is a bit of a disappointment. You lose lots of functionality, for example VOV in comparison, baseline reporting. So far being able actually to write the requirements from a granular way. There are system constraints, very old times in ALM which make it an outdated tool for requirements to be frank.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    ALM is very stable. I'd still rather you didn't talk about facts, but it's stable. We never had a crash, for example. If that's what you mean.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is highly scalable.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    The technical support is pretty good. It probably depends on the support contract type you have. Our contract works pretty well as we have dedicated support engineers for our product.

    They are knowledgeable and responsive. Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters. So we never had a problem to get issues fixed when we found that particular person. It was very effective I guess.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup of ALM is, well, mixed. You know the old Java clients give some headaches. That's for ALM.

    What other advice do I have?

    When considering vendors we look for stability, support and reliability. And that's probably it. So we probably are not going for small vendors.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user671364 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Head of Department Testing at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Consultant
    This solution helps us to connect the business mindset with our business analytics.

    What is most valuable?

    We are using ALM especially in business process testings because this solution helps us to connect the business mindset with our business analytics and the IT perspective. When we ran several years ago classical tests business did not understand the quality of our application. When we began to talk with the business process, it helped improve communication between business and IT.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The business value from Octane has benefited us. We see that it can combine all third parties together, free software, integrate all tools together, and create a single pipeline for development.

    What needs improvement?

    The previous version of ALM had a greater functionality regarding test cases. Not automatic, BBT and so on, but now in ALM Octane we have only manual testing and integration with other tools.

    I think we need to increase functionality to help us to run testing. When we run the ALM project so I think I can give it a better score after we assess our experience.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability is OK as we installed the superior version, and now we are in our testing environment. We are investigating the process how best to use it. I heard that we can download a new version and I think after this conference we can begin our pilot project for the real team because we have several areas for implementing developments and several comments.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have 10,000 employees. There is a huge IT staff so we need tools that can help us to collaborate with each other.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    We have used HP technical support for resolving cases and we also asked help from Presales in HP Russia. These guys resolved our problems and helped us to install ALM Octane in our environment.

    How was the initial setup?

    When we installed it we had a problem because it's running on Linux and we needed to create our infrastructure for installing Linux which was a big problem. The previous version of ALM was working on Windows. But we resolved these problems.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Validation Office at a pharma/biotech company with 51-200 employees
    Vendor
    Provides traceability from requirements to executed tests and fixed defects.

    What is most valuable?

    • Traceability from requirements to executed tests and fixed defects
    • Visibility and reporting on test execution

    How has it helped my organization?

    It gave us control over the development of requirements and tests needed for the bank's transition from bespoke back-end systems to an Oracle banking system.

    What needs improvement?

    The user interface is still dated. Writing test scripts in HPE ALM is generally avoided as the interface is too awkward to use. At the software development company where I worked, the test scripts were routinely created in Excel and uploaded into Quality Center. This process was seen as much more productive than using the HPE QC interface.

    At the bank where I worked, I was responsible for training and supporting the end user testers. I constantly found myself defending the way HPE ALM worked. When executing tests, the users would get themselves lost, would expect an action to have taken place when it had not, had lots of problems logging defects, had problems getting screenshots into a defect, and understanding and using favourites.

    The interface they have developed is quite good at the top level, i.e., grouping into Requirements, Test Cases, Test Execution, and Defect Management. However, once you get into each area, the complexity of the application kicks in. There is no 'flow' of the basic functionality. For example, in Requirements, the basic function is to create requirements and link them. There should be a wizard that guides the user through that process, which includes suggestions about grouping and structuring, etc. Instead, you are just left dangling.

    Another example: Test cases are to be written or modified, linked, selected for execution, and executed. Test execution in particular is a prime candidate for 'wizard-like' guidance for the tester. A much-clearer indication of where the test execution is up to by test set and test case as well the test steps would be most helpful.

    What do I mean by 'flow'? Based on my own application development experience, the basic function(s) of the application should be obvious to the user and the easiest to perform. Extra functionality steps are seen as and executed as digressions from the standard flow. I realize that this is not easy in a product as complex as HPE ALM that has been hacked together by several companies and many developers over the years, which I guess is the reason it is the way it is.

    We imported a large number of tests and requirements and found a few 'gotchas' on the way, but generally it filled our needs at the bank that I was working at the time.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I used HPE ALM at the bank for 9-10 months.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    We had a number of issues with importing the requirements and test cases we had created in Excel. Mind you, we were using a very complicated setup in Excel.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We only encountered stability issues in the importing from Excel. Things would not go quite as smoothly as expected; quite a few emails back and forth to the local supplier.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any scalability issues.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    The local supplier Assurity were good.

    Technical Support:

    The local suppliers were very good, but if it was something that had to go back to HPE, forget it.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We were using Excel spreadsheets to try and test a major system change in a bank. Need I say more?

    How was the initial setup?

    At the bank, the setup took the local supplier over two days to complete. The issues were mostly around meshing into the bank's security and local IT systems.

    What about the implementation team?

    The vendor was okay. The person sent in to do the installation was very knowledgeable on the product.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is totally over-priced.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I did not evaluate other options. The system was picked by the QA manager at the time, based on his experience with the product.

    What other advice do I have?

    I think it is over-priced and would recommend looking carefully at other options.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    Validation Office at a pharma/biotech company with 51-200 employees
    Vendor
    It helped us become compliant with GAMP and ISO requirements. The user interface is dated and not terribly intuitive.

    What is most valuable?

    • Traceability from requirements to executed tests and fixed defects
    • Visibility and reporting on test execution

    How has it helped my organization?

    In the case of the software development company, the use of HPE QC helped us to become compliant with GAMP and ISO requirements. The process of developing the software had to meet the regulatory requirements FDA 21 CFR Part 11.

    What needs improvement?

    • Reporting.
    • Project setup and maintenance.
    • The user interface is dated and not terribly intuitive.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I used HPQC at a software development company for about six years. We upgraded it once from 9 to 10. As far as I know, they are still using that version, because the modifications they have made over the years would make it too difficult to upgrade.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    I don’t remember any deployment issues. The R&D department at the software development company handled all the install and setup.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I don’t remember any stability issues (it was over five years ago that I was at that company).

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I did not encounter any scalability issues. We regularly ran test sets with over 60,000 test steps.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The response from HPE is almost non-existent. Most of our issues were fixed by the company's R&D section.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    The switch to HPE QC was made because the existing system was not considered GAMP-compliant.

    How was the initial setup?

    The software development company spent considerable resources in getting the system set up correctly using modifications developed in-house, as well as developing user guides that we could use for training users of the system.

    What about the implementation team?

    An in-house team implemented it.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is totally over-priced.

    What other advice do I have?

    We had to modify the product considerably to get it to do what we wanted, especially reporting. It never did fully meet our needs for traceability back to user-readable requirements documentation.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user544794 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Business Systems Consultant at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    The most valuable features are cross referencing and traceability.
    Pros and Cons
    • "Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
    • "Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"

    What is most valuable?

    • Cross referencing between the modules: Insures traceability between requirements, tests and defects with easy maintenance and reporting.
    • Traceability: Ensures that requirements are covered, test cases can be linked back to defects, and code is not pushed to production without testing or checking outstanding defects. Traceability reports are an audit requirement.
    • Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Having a system of record that maintains traceability ensures that reporting and audit items are managed in the same system. This has simplified the need for additional documentation to meet audit requirements.

    What needs improvement?

    • Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas
    • Requirements are not managed as well as in other applications

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have used this product since 2003.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have a large ALM instance. The biggest issue with stability is related to reporting. To offset this issue, we are working on an alternative reporting solution that would use data warehousing and not affect the application directly.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    There are scalability issues. HPE does not support clustering of database servers.

    In addition, a specific number of users, concurrent usage, or databases has not been supplied by HPE as a best practice for a maximum per node. To obviate this risk, we are looking at leveraging three load balanced servers and one standalone application server.

    The standalone server would be used for third party integrations, reporting, etc. End-users and automated tests would leverage a single vanity URL with load balancing spread across three servers.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We have HPE FlexCare. This provides for single points of contact, which is a must with a large organization.

    Training is becoming an issue again with HPE technicians. That glib answer of issues being ‘fixed’ in a later release is being provided instead of true research of the issue. This is an ongoing problem we have seen working with them over the past ten years.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We still use a variety of SDLC tools within my organization. However, HPE ALM has been determined to be the best all around solution for testing of software across the enterprise.

    We are doing a number of activities to reach a common goal, including leveraging the ALM template functionality and defining fields and list values across all testing applications.

    How was the initial setup?

    HPE ALM Quality Center, (formerly HP Quality Center, and before that, Mercury Test Director), has been in use for over 10 years.

    It is easy enough to set up an ‘instance’ of HPE ALM.

    However, it is recommended to understand the business and process it will be supporting. This will ensure that standards, additional fields, etc. are incorporated early in the design.

    If decisions on how the application will be used are not defined early on, then a later project to standardize it may be required.

    Without standards, data cannot be shared easily between ALM projects, databases, and third party tools.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered. With concurrent licenses, there is no need to search for machines with unused licenses.

    What other advice do I have?

    • Be thoughtful and consistent.
    • Know your current business process and incorporate it into the application.
    • Ensure that the management is handled at an enterprise level, as opposed to a department or group level. This allows the application to grow in a supportable direction, while allowing a certain amount of flexibility.
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user568155 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Software Test Manager at a pharma/biotech company with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Vendor
    It enables us to manage and track tests, and to record the effects while providing us with full traceability.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable feature is the Quality Center itself. It's a test management tool; so it enables us to manage and track tests, record the effects, and give us full traceability. It enables us to record what's happened and to have full traceability throughout the testing process.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It provides us with a central place for all our tests and all our test results.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability is very good.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability is very good.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes the support has been very good. At other times, the wait has been a bit long to get a response.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We were previously just recording all our test evidence in Word documents. So we needed a test center.

    What other advice do I have?

    Make sure that you set it up correctly, and make sure you use the full range of tools in it. It will provide you with enough information for you to produce reports and get a full understanding from what you have done.

    Our most important criteria when we choose a solution are reliability and scalability.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user568158 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Software Test Manager at Almac Group
    Vendor
    By creating our test cases, executing test cases and then raising defects, it gives us visibility back to our functional requirements.

    What is most valuable?

    From a testing perspective, creating our test cases, executing test cases and then raising defects, it gives us good visibility back to our functional requirements.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It’s one product that allows us to do everything from a system test perspective.

    What needs improvement?

    We’ve seen a couple demos for Octane and Agile Manager. I think the direction it’s going will deliver what we want. At this time, it delivers what we need, but the direction that Octane is going is what I would like to go towards.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We’ve had the product online for about 7 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have not really had any problems with it. It delivers everything that we need.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The way things are going, it’s going in the direction that we would want; with ALM, Octane, and all the types of products that we want.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I don’t use technical support personally. We have another guy that we report issues to and he looks after those.

    How was the initial setup?

    I was not involved in the initial setup.

    What other advice do I have?

    From a testing perspective, it is a great product for system test and delivers everything that you need. It gives you the complete package and full visibility from your requirements to creating tests, test execution and defect tracking. Definitely a great tool.

    When looking at vendors, we look for reliability, trust. If you do have an issue, you want to know that somebody is going to take an interest in it.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user567696 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Executive Alliances at EOH
    Consultant
    It is robust and the testing tools are beneficial, especially the REST API environment.

    What is most valuable?

    It's robust and leading edge. They are always ahead of the pack. They spend a lot on research and development and that’s the reason they make good products.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The testing tools and everything that comes with it is very beneficial; especially the REST API environment that is best-of-breed.

    What needs improvement?

    I am not an end user so I can't really say. But, I would like to see improvement in the price.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution is very stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    You can use it any way, so I suppose it is very scalable.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I am not personally responsible for technical support, but the other team would have used them.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We have always been using HPE products, so we have just grown with it.

    How was the initial setup?

    Another team was responsible for the setup.

    What other advice do I have?

    Specifically for this solution, they need to be in a close relationship to co-develop functionality. They also need to know the vendor is there. That is the biggest plus from an HPE perspective.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user567684 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Director at Scott/Tiger - Test & Quality Management
    Real User
    You can have global templates instead of specific templates for each product. It's a stable platform.

    What is most valuable?

    ALM makes functional testing much easier for our customers. We tell them that if they use ALM, they will have a productivity gain of at least 40% compared to using traditional spreadsheets, Word documents, and so on. They also need it because their departments are getting larger and larger. They're not sitting in the same place, so they need a tool to combine their teams’ efforts. This is difficult if you are using Excel spreadsheets because you need to send them by email and make sure they have the latest version.

    We see the advantage of ALM over Quality Center. You can have templates instead of having specific templates for each product. Once we define the workflow for customer X and the setup for that customer, we include all of that in the template. If we want to make a change, we change it in the template. We'll then do an escalation down through all of the various products so that each and every one gets updated. So it means that things are administratively much easier with ALM compared to QC.

    With Octane, HPE is finally trying to combine the agile world together with the functional testing world. It also has an integrated ALI, which means that with Octane you have one point of view of your whole testing process. I see that this as very valuable because we're also competing with JIRA and so on, which has the facilities that we are trying to accomplish with Agile Manager.

    JIRA is fancied by developers; so if a war starts between developers and testers, usually what we see - in Denmark, at least, - is that the testers are on the losing side. But if we can get Agile Manager on our side, then we can start competing with products like JIRA.

    What needs improvement?

    We should consider not being a testing tool as such. I know that with ALI, we integrated the customer's EDI - the Eclipse, SAP and Visual Studio - but we'll need to do that more. We need to get moving in that direction as well.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    ALM is a very stable product. The latest version we install at customer sites is 12.5.3. It's a very stable platform. We have no complaints whatsoever.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Our customers do not generally use HPE support very often; and therefore it's a bit awkward for them to get started with it. They find it pretty difficult. That's not the worst part. The worst part is really when you finally get to someone to talk to, and then they're not qualified. So we instruct our customers, if that happens to you, you should say immediately that I want to escalate this to a duty manager, who can then take charge. It's not as bad as the time we tried to move all of our support functions to India. That was terrible. Thank God we got it back; but I don't think we are there yet. We need more qualified people to take first-line support.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We are the experts in Denmark. That means it's a bit easier for us because we know exactly what to do. Various customers use our services to do that for them because it can be very complex if you only do it on a rare occasion. If there is a customer who needs to upgrade from 11.5.2, for example, and they haven’t touched the administrator module for a couple of years, it is easier for us to do the upgrade because we do it all the time.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    HPE has failed desperately to offer a competitive enterprise for new customers in this market. If I have a new customer, three years ago I could sell them ALM site licenses. Now I need to sell them ALM global licenses, which is a hard sell because it is double the price. That just doesn't appeal for new customers. So I understand why they take JIRA or stick to Excel spreadsheets because HPE has priced themselves out of that market.

    With Octane, you get more functionality; but it's like having Microsoft Word. How much of that functionality do you use? You probably use 20% out of the 80%. So I don't think that adding more functionality solves the problem. HPE desperately needs to get a low enterprise for new customers.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I believe that my largest competitor is our customers who are using Excel, followed by those who use JIRA.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
    PeerSpot user
    it_user568008 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior Director Global QA at NICE Actimize
    Vendor
    LeanFT and Quality Center

    What is most valuable?

    LeanFT:

    LeanFT is a new solution, but in general, it's opened us up to a wider audience such as the developers, so they can actually do their unit testing. We couldn’t do that with HPE UFT. This is the big advantage of this tool.

    The second thing is you can use more technologies than with UFT, including using different languages like Java.

    The third part is that we can use the Cucumber test framework, which is something that you can use easily with LeanFT.

    Quality Center:

    Quality Center is our testing management tool. When you're running a global team with more than 120 QA staff around the world, you need one repository to write, run, monitor, and share your test cases between teams.

    This is the most valuable feature of this solution and you can do it very easily. The UI is very user-friendly. With one click, you can see the status of each project that you're executing. Quality Center is the Rolls Royce of solutions and I would give it the highest rating.

    What needs improvement?

    LeanFT:

    LeanFT should include more technologies. For example, I would like it to include the Scala programming language. That is one of the main language that we use.

    Quality Center:

    There is a new product, HPE ALM Octane, which might be the solution for the gaps. I would like to see more connection to more products and processes, and including the DevOps into Quality Center.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability for both is okay.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is becoming more complex. Scaling involves more experienced people because it’s not easy to scale.

    LeanFT:

    Because this is a new product, we're not at a stage to scale something. I don't know how it's going to scale. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it should be okay.

    Quality Center:

    Since Quality Center is a web application, it's easy to add more users and products.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is good. We are located in Israel, with an Israeli team, so it's easy to contact them. We have the right phone numbers and from that standpoint, it's great.

    How was the initial setup?

    There's always room for improvement and additional customization that would be nice. In general, both solutions are quite easy to install.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    LeanFT:

    There is a debate between this solution and Selenium, and we use both of them. Your choice of tool depends on the technology and the gaps in each of them. We are not an “all-HPE shop”.

    Quality Center:

    We looked at IBM’s RTC for an ALM solution. We use it now for implementing SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework), which is designed for feature tasks, user stories, and program board elements.

    What other advice do I have?

    We chose HPE because I had good experience with them when I was Test Director. In term of overall experience, HPE provides a good experience for the users and a lot of benefits which you cannot find with other vendors.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user568128 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Process Analyist at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    Real-time insight into software development. It's a little bit costly and needs testing analytics.

    What is most valuable?

    All types of data can be seen in one place.

    How has it helped my organization?

    • Real-time insight into what’s going on.
    • Helps us work aligned with reality.

    What needs improvement?

    It's doing what it should do, but it's a little bit costly. I would like to see some kind of testing analytics.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability is good; no problems.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    So far, we have not had any scalability problems.

    How was the initial setup?

    I was involved in the setup. It is an out-of-the-box, simple installation. Now we're doing data migration to the database. We are just reading the manual, but more people are involved. This is a normal process.

    What other advice do I have?

    Start slowly.

    When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria for me are that they are trustworthy and nearby.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user568005 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior Manager - Projects at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Vendor
    We use it to test business requirements through user acceptance testing. Integration into release management is missing.

    What is most valuable?

    From a testing point of view, it takes us a step closer to automation. Our testing is quite manual at the moment. We can use it from start to finish; from testing business requirements right through user acceptance testing, load testing, and performance testing. That's a positive feature.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It has dramatically reduced the number of defects that go into production. There have been no serious outages, nor serious problems where we had to do a rollback or anything like that. The transition into production has been very smooth.

    What needs improvement?

    From a tool point of view, I would like see some integration into release management. That is the biggest pain point at this moment.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We bought this solution three years ago.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    From a performance point of view, stability is very good.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    ALM has not directly assisted scalability. I wouldn't say ALM assists with scalability at all.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I haven’t used technical support, but my team has. I don't know about their experience with them, but if they were not satisfied, I would have found out about it.

    What other advice do I have?

    Don’t just focus on the technology and buying it, but rather focus on the processes behind the support of the technology. That was our biggest lesson.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user567885 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Testing Center Manager at Groupement des Mousquetaires
    Vendor
    You can include a requirement test case, feasibility of execution, and dashboard reporting for web or mobile applications.

    What is most valuable?

    It's a very good tool to use for referencing all testing components in the lifecycle of the application end to end. For example, you can include a requirement test case, feasibility of execution, and dashboard reporting for web or mobile applications.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The benefit is to track coverage of functionality, and to have a stronger application without bugs in production.

    What needs improvement?

    Integration with other tools would be good, for example, with open-source tools. In the meantime, we do something with JIRA, with Selenium, and so on, and it's good; but we can increase this connectivity with other tools.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    For the past month, the solution has been more stable than it has been over the past 10 years. For our mobile center, for example, we started using it this year; but it's not very stable for the moment. ALM, however, is stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    For the moment, we use it for our projects; but our testing centre is only in one location, and not for offshore. We haven’t had to scale it much.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support depends; frequently, it's not very responsive in resolving our problem, but engineers handle it too late.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    In the past, we used a Compuware Solution and an open source solution. We switched to ALM because tracking all activities is better when all your monitoring is on products from the same vendor.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was okay.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    The IBM solution is very hard to set up and to use. The Silk solution, which is now Micro Focus, is very strong.

    With ALM, it’s simple.

    What other advice do I have?

    Use ALM because it's simple; it has all information you need to communicate with all people involved in a project, whether they are in IT or not IT. This is the aim of the testing lifecycle.

    The most important thing when choosing a vendor is that the product is user friendly and can integrate with all your old modules. It helps to have one application rather than multiple applications to connect with all the different companies.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user326448 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Technical Test Analyst and Automation Engineer at Unum
    Real User
    Grant different users access to the specific section they need. It has made our development process more professional.

    What is most valuable?

    Most valuable to us is the ability to have the system organized into distinct roles and sections. That way, we can grant different users access to the specific section they need to access. We have business users that only need to run tests, so they only need that small section of the application. We have the BA's, product trainers, who only care about the requirements.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It has made our development process more professional. The whole interim process is a lot more professional. You can align it with the development life cycles, get the developers to buy in, and try and get it all linked in to the TFS Visual Studio.

    Integration is also important to us. You've got Sprinter, which is quite nice for those that aren't familiar with what they've got to do. It's a nice little guide. Also, you can link it in with performance and automation tools, and kick things off with the push of a button.

    What needs improvement?

    New development methodologies, such as continuous integration and kanban boards, are being implemented by Microsoft and others to try to get their tools into the testing profession. ALM's got to push back and think more about the overall end-to-end development process. It's very much still a testing tool. We have a few awkward links rather than being a full solution.HPE ALM lacks a few of these features, but for a testing focus tool, helping to ensure quality, I think it's really good. It's good at its core necessities.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's very stable at the moment. We're not on the most recent version. We have been using version 1201 for 2 ½ years. I did the upgrade, and I found it easy for me to do, because I'd done the previous upgrade as well. The documentation from HPE isn't that great if you don't know what it means. It’s been stable, but I say that, because I did the install.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is good.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is good. We've had to get quite deep down in some incidents, so we've actually managed to get through to third level support and speak to the developers. At that point, you're both talking the same language. They can understand your issues and you get good resolution if it gets to that level.

    How was the initial setup?

    I was not involved in the initial setup back in those days. A couple contractors did it. It was called TestDirector in those days. I'm going to have a look at the new HPE ALM Octane later.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Their licensing model is expensive. We could scale it up and use it everywhere, but then, you look at how much it would cost for the licenses and you really think, "Is it worth it?"

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I was not involved with the decision process, but I did put a case together to continue using it. Our parent company was trying to push us to use Microsoft TFS. I was basically showing how much better ALM is over TFS. For what we were using it for, it's just much better than TFS. It was the testing tool of choice.

    What other advice do I have?

    Try and have a play with it and don't be afraid to customize. We've got this big workflow in ours, so you can control the rules a lot better as to who can do what, who has access, and what they can see. Out of the box, it's a bit vanilla and there's the risk that someone could be given wrong permissions and accidentally do something they shouldn't.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
    Don IngersonQA Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
    ExpertTop 5Consultant

    Yes and the ability to integrate with other development tools and new applications is quite impressive.

    See all 4 comments
    it_user567597 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Vice President, IT Application Services at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    Since we have a disjointed arena, it provides a central repository for all our testing artifacts and documentation.

    What is most valuable?

    It provides a central repository for all our testing artifacts and documentation. We use it not only to keep everything centrally housed, but it is also great for answering audits. That is our biggest use of this product.

    Centralization of our testing artifacts is probably the biggest benefit. We have a disjointed arena with a lot of different legacy applications and new applications that are being built. We need a central house to store all our procedures, documents etc. and ALM is the tool for doing all that.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It provides a streamlined and consistent approach. One that is repeatable. In today's fast paced IT world, these things are definitely necessary.

    What needs improvement?

    We're starting to move more into a microservices enablement world. Using other products and being able to integrate with Docker etc. is going to be key for us. That's one of the reasons why I attended this conference, is to learn a little bit more about how HPE can help us with the integration of those tools.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have had no stability issues. It is very reliable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's handling everything we've asked it to do so I don't have any issues with scalability. It could probably do 10 times more than what it's doing for us.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Other than professional services, we haven't used any technical support.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Initially, we were using other products but HPE acquired a couple of those companies. Now with the recent movement towards pushing their software out to Micro Focus that may change a little bit of the relationship we have with HPE. That's another reason why I attended the conference, is to understand a bit more about how that relationship will evolve.

    How was the initial setup?

    It was initially setup within my organization but I didn't really have any hands-on involvement with it. Our direct teams were involved in this process. Based on the staff that we have today, it was very straightforward and very easy to do. Then again, we've got people who had experience with the tool so they've done it before.

    What other advice do I have?

    HPE has a great suite or had a great suite in their software department and everything integrates very well. For those who are looking at HPE or now Micro Focus in terms of their software, I would advise them to consider interoperability of all the capabilities. That is the key for speed and implementation as opposed to feature functions. One of the things that we've found with the HPE suite is that the interoperability is hands-down second to none.

    It's 100% reliable to us. It provides us everything we need. It's scalable, flexible, centralized and also integrates well. What more could you ask for?

    The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are partnership, value, capability and flexibility. We've partnered up with HPE for years and we enjoy all those different aspects with them.


    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    PeerSpot user
    QA at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    Valuable for Defect Management, Test Management, MS Excel Reporting, Analysis Graphs.

    What is most valuable?

    Defect Management, Test Management, MS Excel Reporting, Analysis Graphs.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Allowed us to centralize our test efforts from end to end so that we have a single source of truth for all of our test artifacts and data.

    What needs improvement?

    As an administrator, the ability to add users to their appropriate user groups from inside of the Site Administrator tool instead of having to log into the ALM project itself to make that user group assignment would be HUGE!

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Since 1999 when the product was known as Test Director.

    What was my experience with deployment of the solution?

    Just when folks forgot to check in their assets before migrating / upgrading existing projects.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Not so far, no.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Not so far, no.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Customer Service:

    Good.

    Technical Support:

    Good.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Have been using a version of this solution since 1999. Have not used competing products day to day as of yet.

    How was the initial setup?

    No.

    What about the implementation team?

    In house.

    What was our ROI?

    I don't have exact figures, but we are saving time and money using this solution.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user487383 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior Systems Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    The advantage is that we can test applications before they go to production.

    What is most valuable?

    ALM is a giant library, and Performance Center and LoadRunner require it to run.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We use it to support Performance Center and it runs underneath it as one big system. The advantage is that we can test applications before they go to production, and as long as we're testing in a production-sized environment, we have a pretty good idea how an application will perform in production.

    What needs improvement?

    It's like the overall software framework, and Performance Center is just leveraging that framework for storing things such as tests, scripts and test results. ALM works together with LoadRunner and Performance Center as one big system. As newer protocols are developed and newer technologies come along, it's nice to see HPE be ahead of that as much as possible so that by the time that it's really needed, they're already ahead of the curve and they've got most of their performance issues resolved as far as how the software's going to run.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability on the old versions is good. On the newer versions, the bleeding edge is still being worked on.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's very scalable. No issues with scalability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Premium support is great, but before that when we just had general support, it was not all that great. We had issues with trying to get support to call us back on tickets and turnaround time on resolution.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We previously used IBM Rational.

    How was the initial setup?

    It's not exactly straightforward. Their instructions were not all they could have been, but we still got it installed.

    What other advice do I have?

    As far as we know, it's the best tool on the market right now. They're considered the Cadillacs of the testing tools right now. Don't necessarily go with their most recent version code release right now. It kind of depends on what your needs are and the size of computer shop that you've got.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user485034 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Software QA Lead at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Has scaled out well for us. Prior to the last few years we saw a lot of issues with stability.

    Valuable Features

    I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to ours needs. When we have issues with something we can get support directly from HPE since we paid for it.

    The fact that it works with a vast number of technologies works for us because our internal customers use the tool for testing a lot of different applications. That's probably the best feature that it has for us.

    Improvements to My Organization

    There's a lot of centralized testing from some perspectives and our main goal is to provide for a bunch of different groups at a lower cost so we centralize licensing and distribute it to various people. The biggest benefit of that is that it allows us to empower the people that need the solutions instead of manually having them develop the solutions on their own.

    Room for Improvement

    We've seen a lot of new things in Octane and other things that we have wished for. One of the hardest things that we're noticing is it might be hard to migrate from ALM to Octane, which has the features we need. What we really like is the ability to track different types of tests to our requirement. If you want to play with Selenium Test or LeanFT, UFT tests or any other framework you can think of. Being able to capture those results in a common area is the biggest thing we would be looking for because we have so many different groups that some of them have their own solutions for testing but ALM is sort of the central repository for our results so that would be a huge benefit for us.

    Stability Issues

    In the past three years it's become a lot more stable. Prior to that, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it. We spent a ton of time upgrading to the latest version so we don't have as much experience with the stability of it yet.

    Scalability Issues

    ALM has really scaled out for us. We have hundreds of projects in ALM and it's always done well with that.

    Customer Service and Technical Support

    Customer Service:

    A+

    Technical Support:

    Our biggest issue was in the switch over from HP Inc. to HPE. I think we had some trouble getting in touch with higher level support so we spent a lot of time going through basic support where the people that work with the tools have a lot of experience with the tools. We think that it would be better if we could bypass the lowest levels of support on some issues. I can understand the process that we usually have to go through but more recently our reps have been helpful in getting us to the people that we need quicker so we can get a resolution.

    Other Advice

    We don't have time to develop a lot of reporting and our customers want a lot of reporting. It's hard to have the expertise to write the scripts in the version that we have now. That's a major pain point for us, something that's missing. Another thing is we always hear about it performance. We have a huge load balance environment to try to speed up the performance but there's always some things that are slow in ALM. Just basic navigations are running automated tests is a big thing we hear. People want to run the tests as past as possible but they feel like they're limited by ALM sometimes.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user484959 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Director, Service Transition and Quality Management at CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
    Vendor
    We use it to store requirements, test cases, defects, and other artifacts around certifying that quality is evident in every release.

    Valuable Features

    We have a pretty strong emphasis on quality, so ALM is our gold source repository for quality. That's where we store everything, from requirements, test cases, defects, and all of the artifacts around certifying that quality is evident in every release, in every STLC product we produce.

    Room for Improvement

    The UI is terrible in the sense that we actually use automation scripts to avoid being in the UI, which is just fascinating, and then the data model.

    Stability Issues

    I would say it's stable in the fact that it's up and it works. We have challenges with the data architecture. We're excited about Octane. It has some interesting capabilities, but it's our standard. We're used to using it, so I guess it's the things you want to enhance in it, we're just working through that process from that standpoint, but relatively it works.

    Scalability Issues

    We're already at enterprise scale, so it's used across the enterprise. I would say that we're at that point.

    Customer Service and Technical Support

    We invest very heavily on having strong domain and subject matter expertise, so we use support less. One of the things I would love to have is a pay-per-ticket model or a pay-per-patch model. I think that when we call support, it's either a defect or enhancement. It's not just, "Hey, I need customer support," because we're not novice users. We're on the high end of maturity so we're pushing the products in the spaces that I have very much through limits and it's really getting on their solutions and enhancements team.

    From that standpoint we get good interaction. There's a really long cycle time though. That's my only disappointing thing around the support is that tickets tend to age, because they're enhancements. Enhancements have a longer cycle, you have to develop it, get it in a backlog, etc.

    Initial Setup

    I have an entire team, so I'm a director and I have an entire tools team that does that. I did get involved in the planning and the strategy of how we're going to do it. My team said that first installation is relatively easy. When we go to upgrade and migrate, that's where there's pain.

    Almost every customer will say the upgrades and migrations are very painful. They could be way easier. A lot of it has to do with having to upgrade the data, the in-place database or stand up in entirety, it's just cumbersome. It's very cumbersome and it takes a long time, longer than it probably should. That's a pain point that I think everyone has. Fortunately in our case, we've never had to call professional services to do it. I have a lot of customers say they couldn't get through the upgrade without it. Now, on the support side, it was really helpful, they were on the phone our first major migration for 72 hours.

    It was great to literally be in that, "Hey, we're going through it," they were there the whole time, which was really awesome. We didn't have to involve professional services, but that was a good story to say, "Hey, they're on the phone with us. They're grinding it." So the whole 72-hour period we had someone from support cycle in. They did the hand-offs and all that stuff while our team was grinding off. So that was a good story there.

    Other Advice

    I think it's a great platform. It does a lot for us, but the fact that our users don't want to be in the application is weird. They'd rather work in a spreadsheet and then upload their results to the actual server. Now it could just be their behaviour pattern, but I think if it was a little easier for them to kind of work in, they would have an easier time with it.

    Although on the plus side, the fact that it's open like that and you can just connect, maybe that's a positive too. So it's kind of a plus/minus. The UI they said, "Hey, I don't really like UI," but the fact that you can just upload your stuff from your work space, which could be a spreadsheet, it could be Eclipse, it could be a script that you're working in and it just directly uploads, they love that.

    When you talk about easy use from an integration standpoint, definitely high marks there, but the UI is just something they really do not like. I personally, as the person who has to get all the data and metrics out of it, the data model is horrible. It's a constant complaint that I have. The new Octane platform kind of solves that. I just wish they had put some of that into ALM because the product marketing strategy is you have to have both.

    Have a well-defined process, have a strong reporting structure, meaning in your process you want a lot of measurability. If you define your output, the reports and the questions you need to answer from what you're doing, which your process should be managing for you. In our company, we are very specific about what our executives and stakeholders want.

    We have a very well-defined set of measurements that we have to take. We then put a process designed to ensure those measurements are always taken. That then allows you to deal with your outputs and your reporting structure, which then allows you to properly architect your tooling. The technology is very flexible. You have to decide as a client area how you really want to use it and that's going to start with what your business needs are the values that you're trying to get out of it.

    That's the biggest advice that I have, it's not even on the technology. The technology will do great things for you if you have a plan and a structure and you know what you want it to do for you. Half the time they don't know, they want the tool to do it for them and it's the other way around. So that's what I advise people to do.

    Think about it, have a vision, have a plan, tie that to outcomes, and measure those outcomes. If you're answering the right questions and asking the right questions, your technology will really enable you. You've got to look at it from that standpoint.

    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user607749 - PeerSpot reviewer
    it_user607749Manager, Live Production at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User

    Thanks for the information!

    it_user482835 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Manager, Application Services - Performance Engineering at a pharma/biotech company with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Real User
    Helps us keep track of all the functional testing. Plugins to track e-signatures are hard to implement.

    What is most valuable?

    ALM helps us keep track of all the functional testing that we do for projects before deployment and even after it goes live. We also use it for tracking future enhancements, and all the functional defects. Test requirements are maintained in ALM.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It saves time, and definitely mitigates risks in having products which are not very well built, to having a product which will perform well and function well once it goes live.

    What needs improvement?

    I work in a bio-pharmaceutical company, so we have lot of validated applications, and when we do functional testing for these validation applications, tracking the e-signatures is very important.

    I know there are plugins to track the e-signatures, but the problem is that it's very hard to get them implemented. There's no out-of-the-box way, as far as I know, to implement track changes continuously, that comes with add-ons, and those add-ons operated by third parties as well. They are not very mature and there is a huge learning cycle in adopting them. Due to these reasons, the effectiveness of ALM for an industry like ours is less than what we would see in LoadRunner.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It has been challenging in the past, specifically when a new version is released and we have to upgrade. We haven't been upgrading that often, and because of that, it may mask some other issues which we would encounter because by the time we upgrade the new version we would have gone through some of the new patch fixes and so on. We wait for a couple of years and then apply the fixes. By that time, most of the big bugs are fixed.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It scales for our requirements but we have been finding it more and more expensive for LoadRunner. They're introducing new protocols, but they are quite scalable.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We haven't used technical support directly from HPE. We go through Avnet for all the technical support. They're a value added reseller partner of HPE.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We acquired HPE products a long time ago before I was around.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We have been using ALM and LoadRunner throughout. I can't recall having used any other solution before that. But one thing I have noticed is that there's less and less emphasis on load, scalability or performance testing, and the emphasis seems to be shifting away completely. This is feedback based on the fact that there's less emphasis on performance and load testing in these seminars as opposed to the last few years.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user458409 - PeerSpot reviewer
    Test Community Manager at Orange