OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

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

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.

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

Five years.

No.

No.

Quick response.

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

Straightforward.

No suggestions.

No.

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.

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

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

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.

My guess would be 18 years at least.

Use of test automation with ALM is inherently unstable.

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.

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.

No.

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

It can be expensive to own.

No.

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

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

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

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.

10 years (including earlier versions).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

I understand that it’s still extremely expensive.

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.

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

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.

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,

Two years.

No.

No.

I do not know.

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

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

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.

No.

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.

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.

At the time, the dashboard never really worked.

Three to five years.

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.

I can’t remember any.

On a scale of one to 10: five.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

• 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.

Two years.

No.

No.

Nine on a scale of one to 10.

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

The initial setup is more secure and procedural.

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.

No.

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

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

Helps in terms of managing defects easily.

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.

12 years.

So far fine.

Not good.

No.

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.

Depends on company direction.

No.

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.

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.

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.

Reporting.

Over 15 years.

No.

No.

A seven out of 10.

Not relevant.

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.

It is expensive.

Yes. Micro Focus, IBM Rational, and Spectra.

It is the standard upon which all products are gauged.