OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So far, it hasn't been an issue.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

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.

Agile, Devops.

Seven to eight years.

No.

Agile, Devops

No.

Good.

Need of a single solution for all needs.

Not straightforward, it was a complex architecture.

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

Bugzilla.

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

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.

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

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

I have been using the solution for 10 years now.

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.

No scalability issues.

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.

HPE ALM was our first choice.

Initial setup was not that complex.

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.

No.

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.

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

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.

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

We've used it for seven years.

There were issues with the deployment.

We had some issues with the stability.

We had some issues with the scalability.

8/10

8/10

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.

The initial setup was not complex.

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

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.