OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

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.

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.

Stability for both is okay.

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.

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.

There's always room for improvement and additional customization that would be nice. In general, both solutions are quite easy to install.

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.

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.

All types of data can be seen in one place.

• Real-time insight into what’s going on.
• Helps us work aligned with reality.

It's doing what it should do, but it's a little bit costly. I would like to see some kind of testing analytics.

Stability is good; no problems.

So far, we have not had any scalability problems.

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.

Start slowly.

When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria for me are that they are trustworthy and nearby.

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.

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.

From a tool point of view, I would like see some integration into release management. That is the biggest pain point at this moment.

We bought this solution three years ago.

From a performance point of view, stability is very good.

ALM has not directly assisted scalability. I wouldn't say ALM assists with scalability at all.

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.

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.

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.

The benefit is to track coverage of functionality, and to have a stronger application without bugs in production.

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.

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.

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.

Technical support depends; frequently, it's not very responsive in resolving our problem, but engineers handle it too late.

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.

The initial setup was okay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scalability is good.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

It provides a streamlined and consistent approach. One that is repeatable. In today's fast paced IT world, these things are definitely necessary.

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.

We have had no stability issues. It is very reliable.

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.

Other than professional services, we haven't used any technical support.

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.

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.

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.

Defect Management, Test Management, MS Excel Reporting, Analysis Graphs.

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.

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!

Since 1999 when the product was known as Test Director.

Just when folks forgot to check in their assets before migrating / upgrading existing projects.

Not so far, no.

Not so far, no.

Good.

Good.

Have been using a version of this solution since 1999. Have not used competing products day to day as of yet.

No.

In house.

I don't have exact figures, but we are saving time and money using this solution.

ALM is a giant library, and Performance Center and LoadRunner require it to run.

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.

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.

The stability on the old versions is good. On the newer versions, the bleeding edge is still being worked on.

It's very scalable. No issues with scalability.

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.

We previously used IBM Rational.

It's not exactly straightforward. Their instructions were not all they could have been, but we still got it installed.

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.