OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

The most useful are the requirements repository, the ability to link requirements to test script steps, and the use of traceability matrix reporting.

Houses requirements and testing with approvals all in one place. Signature approval capability was very useful.

It could be better by incorporating more spell checking and word processing functionalities in steps. Also, it could be more user friendly to "call" other scripts.

I have used the latest version of ALM for about four years, but I have used all previous versions going back to 2001 through to today.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Mostly with the blocking of users when the license limit was reached.

It's 5/10 as our own resources were more useful at solving issues.

It's 5/10 - our own resources were more useful at solving issues due to time constraints with responses.

We did not have a previous solution. This was our first solution.

Make sure it is easy to use for your roles. If you have technical people, other solutions may be better (like resources with VB expertise, etc.). Make sure you implement it as organized by system functionality, not by project.

My current company is just starting to use it, and they keep copying test plans for each project instead of reusing original test plans, which is a waste of time and resources.

• Test Management
• Reporting
• Defect Management
• RTM
• Requirement Management

Quality Center has helped my organization in monitoring the testing process and improving productivity. The test execution and creation monitoring feature in Quality Center is one of the most advanced features available in the industry. You can easily track the testing process as minute as test cases executed on a particular system.

Almost all of the areas are very advanced, but one module which needs improvement is report extraction, and billing module is missing.

I've used it for eight years.

No issues encountered.

Too many users logged in at a particular time affects the Quality Center response time dramatically.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's excellent.

There was no previous solution was in place.

It was very easy and straightforward.

We used a mix of an in-house team and a vendor team.

We've seen ROI, but I can't share any specifics.

Pricing is high, but with new tools available in the market at a lower price, it is worth doing a decision analysis and resolution.

• Mantis
• JIRA

There are so many other tools available in market, so before investing a huge amount in Quality Center, you should analyze other tools as well.

We are using the solution for multiple purposes: test management, defect tracking, traceability, requirement tracking, and test execution.

We're regulated by the FDA so the number of manual signatures and paper-based signatures was reduced. We have had less waste, have been able to collaborate more, and have saved time.

In future releases I'd like to see better reporting, a more simplified UI, and improved metrics. It would also good if they removed some features to simplify the solution. It only supports internet explorer right now, so it would be good if it could support other browsers. Browser costs are also fairly high.

Pretty stable.

It has been fairly scalable.

HP support is good and they are very responsive. They're not world class, but they're good.

We used Word documents, which was not efficient.

Though we only purchased ALM less than a year ago, we believe ROI is good.

Prospective buyers should know that it doesn’t support all browsers and that browser costs are high.

• Reporting
• Dashboard
• Traceability
• Application Lifecycle Management

The tool has increased the collaboration between different teams.

Some improvement to the Requirements Management are needed.

I've used it for five years along with HP Quality Center Enterprise Edition v10.

No issues encountered.

No, it's a very stable product.

No issues encountered.

8//10.

7/10.

We switched because the previous solution was lacking features to manage a complete life-cycle.

Very simple setup.

We used a vendor who were 10/10.

11 months.

Varies.

For us this was the complete choice.

Use iy out of the box and utilize built in features.

The integration with MS Excel, test suite upload feature, Document builder and the test run process.

Helps in providing an archive of test suites for easy regression.

Also helps to keep track of the time spent on test executions, and defect management.

Two years plus.

The Client was needed in our network environment because the Web GUI was found to be unstable.

The client crashes every so often, but only when left idle for a while.

Majority of the tests done by my company are manual so QC serves majorly as a depository for our client.

• End to End traceability (requirements- test cases- defects)
• Analytics (reporting, charts, dashboards, etc.)
• Ease of defect management
• Ease of email alerts, etc.

In my last organization we identified HP ALM as our strategic test management tool to standardize tool usage across the organization. Different business teams were using different tools like Bugzilla etc. but with the procurement of HP ALM everything was, eventually, standardized. By means of ALM we were able to deploy some testing standards and processes. Personally, I found ALM very handy for test managers and project managers as an entire project test life-cycle can be managed in one place and leadership get end-end visibility. I also like the reporting function in ALM, very useful.

Overall the user experience of HP ALM is very good, there are some small improvements which can help those who are doing defect triage and management, and also the actual testers who use a test lab. For instance, when I open the defect list using a report or dashboard drill down, I can’t update individual defect without actually opening it. However if I select a defect shortlisting criteria and get a list of matching defects from defect module (defect list view) I can very well update defect log without actually having to open the defect. This seems like a small thing but believe me, when you are dealing with multiple defects and have limited time on a defect triage call, this small functionality really makes your life easy. There a such few small enhancements which HP can probably do to make this wonderful tool even better.

I've used it for two years and three months.

Yes, some minor issues but these were not tool issues but more to do with lack of testing after deployment.

No, ALM is pretty stable.

Only once but that was because we reached the maximum floating license capacity at a particular time due to many testers from multiple projects logged in at the same time.

I have never had direct interaction with customer service.

I did not personally, but in my previous organization Bugzilla was used. ALM replaced it because it was a complete package, and also the company had bought other HP testing tools like UFT & PC to meet end to end testing needs.

I wasn’t the admin for ALM so can’t really comment, but from an user standpoint I found it pretty simple.

We had an in-house admin team.

I don’t know the ROI in monetary terms, but certainly ALM helped me get more people to follow testing standards and practices.

In my current company we have multiple tools. I am currently exploring various options to standardize the tool set up. Some of these tools are JIRA, and Bugtracker, etc.

If you want AN end to end testing lifecycle product, I think HP is the winner. It has test management (ALM), Automation (UFT) and Performance (PC) testing, and it all is in the bundled package from HP, so all end to end testing needs are managed. From a pure test management standpoint, ALM also stands tall as it provides a very good solution to manage requirements, test cases, defects, traceability and reports, and not just bug management.

• Test Management
• Test Report Generation

Option to trace bug directly from App.

• Test Report Generation
• Creating test iterations/projects

I've used it for over two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Did not use it, as it was enterprise provided.

We have an internal technical team.

We previously used RTM, and we switched because ALM is better than IBM RTM tool.

Our internal technical team did it, but It was not tough though.

In-house implementation.

Good.

Good product.

We are using SaaS mode, connected with our internal LDAP

• Highly customizable GI, easy for designing product backlog
• Whole bunch of metrics on Dashboard page
• Available in French language (Paris based company)
• Built-in Retrospective
• Continuous integration features

• Transition to Agile for new projects is made eaier
• Tool helps people to get accustomed with Agile Scrum and Kanban concepts, specially for Product owners

• Lack of communication while unveiling new functionalities on Saas
• Licensing model is relatively expensive compared to alternate solutions
• License management could be more flexible (like floating licenses)

2 years

No

Excellent performance except few days in 2 years experience.

Easily scalable - we have 400 users using the same instance.

Good interaction from support people.

Excellent. The integration with our LDAP went very smooth.

Jira

Initial set-up in early 2013 was difficult as the product was new. PS did a good job in presenting the solution.

Very good and professional.

We had 2 months free trial and support from HP PS people.

Jira GreenHopper