OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is preparing test cases, and we deploy the solution via desktop.

The independent view of elevated access is good. In addition, the elevated instructions being sent to our SQL is valuable.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the response from customer service and support could be improved.

We have been using this solution for fifteen years. We are currently using version 12 but intend to migrate to version 16.

I rate the scalability of the solution ten out of ten. There are currently over 100 users using this solution in our organization.

We have had a poor experience with customer service and support, and sometimes, we do not get responses from them.

We have previously used JIRA, but ALM was a better solution for us.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment is done in-house.

I cannot comment on licensing as another department handles it.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I primarily use ALM Quality Center as a conversion tool.

Previously, we stored our test cases and results in Excel sheets, which was difficult to manage. Implementing ALM Quality Center has allowed us to map our requirements with test cases and use cases properly.

ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard.

ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes. In the next release, I would like a time management feature to be included.

I've been using ALM Quality Center for two-and-a-half years.

ALM Quality Center is stable.

ALM Quality Center is scalable.

Micro Focus's technical support is functional and responsive.

I previously used Microsoft Azure.

The initial setup was a little complex in terms of setting up the database. Deployment took between forty-five minutes and an hour.

We used a third-party team.

ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly.

Compared to JIRA and other solutions, ALM Quality Center is better for large-scale projects. I would rate ALM Quality Center four out of ten.

It's a business process requirement and is being used for test cases, test executions, defect locks, metrics, dashboards, etc.

In implementation projects, things work in the waterfall methodology so it's the best tool to collect all the requirements in one place to tie up into the test cases and test executions, so this solution is extensively being used in the company for implementation projects, particularly in test management activities. 

I like all the features this solution provides. It is a good stand-alone test management tool.

Pricing could be improved as it's high-priced. I don't exactly know the pricing point, but previously, I know that it was really high so fewer people were able to use it for their projects. That's the only disadvantage I could think of.

One other thing: I'm not sure if Micro Focus ALM Quality Center has this feature, or other people could be using this feature currently, but if it can be connected to any automation tool then it can pass those automation test scripts, which internally it can reflect that requirement if it passed. If that feature is there, then it's good.

If that feature isn't available, what I would like to see right now is whether it can be done manually. You can say that manually, these test cases that are linked to the requirement have passed.

If this solution, on the other hand, can be connected to an automation tool, then it can update us automatically about the test script and whether there's a link between the test scripts and the requirement, then we can say: "Okay, this requirement ran automation test scripts and it passed, and that means coverage is good."

I don't know whether this feature is currently available. If it's there, good. If it isn't, then that would probably be one last item I would be looking for which I'd like to be integrated into the test management tool.

I'm currently using the Micro Focus ALM Quality Center.

About the stability of this solution, I noticed a glitch. Sometimes if I go into any of the test cases, it will show as if it doesn't have anything, but if you click the box, it'll show the content of the box e.g. company information, steps, or expected results in those test cases. Apart from that, I didn't see any other glitches.

I have no issues with scalability because if you want more projects, you can add more projects, and if you want more texture, spaces, or cycles, you can add them. I find it good.

Currently we don't have any technical concerns on the ALM side, so no improvement needed support-wise.

The setup was a one-time thing and I didn't find it difficult.

I was able to evaluate Jira, Confluence and Xray.

We don't have any technical concerns about the Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Probably, it's on a different piece of Micro Focus solution called MF Connect which connects the ALM to the DevOps so that's a different one.

My advice to others looking to implement Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that using it successfully depends on the person and the project. It may not be the same for other people, but installing it and using it offers less hassle, but I won't suggest it for everybody because analysis needs to be done when using this solution for particular projects. Users need to think about their requirements and if their requirements are not being met, then this tool may be obsolete, but as a test management stand-alone tool, it's a good tool.

I've been using this solution full-fledged and I don't see any improvements which I required in this project. I started to use this product when it was in Mercury, and Mercury then went into HP, then into Micro Focus, so I'm a longtime fan of this HPQC ALM thing. But these days, things are working differently in Agile. So Agile: It works on stories and so forth, but there is no repository of requirements or any kind of history of things. There, a project comes and it works in an Agile fashion. I don't know how good this tool is when used in an Agile perspective, but I'm sure that it is a good test management tool.

I'm rating ALM based on two points. One rating is for the product. The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll rate it a five out of ten because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost.

As a stand-alone test management tool, I'm giving it a nine out of ten.

If I'm trying to scale and I'm spending more money, my rating will go down. If it's able to scale with less money like Jira, Confluence, or some other tool like Xray, then scaling may be done faster with less cost to the user.

Wherever you put five out of ten, I would say to upgrade that to seven out of ten.

It is underutilized at the moment because we use this solution for tracking the test scenarios, test results, and defects.

We are looking at integrating a tool that can provide integrations with the other DevOps tools.

At this time, we don't feel that this solution has any value. We are communicating with Micro Focus to address this commission where we feel that it has more value added to it.

The integration needs improvement. It is not integrated with the rest of the ecosystem. It's a stand-alone tool right now used for testing and defects. We are considering and testing Octane because it seems to have more integration with the DevOps ecosystem.

I started using this solution when it was Test Director. This was before it was upgraded to Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. 

I have been using it for the last 10 years.

We are not working with the latest version. Rather than upgrade to the latest version, we are considering moving to Octane.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable.

It is not a scalable solution. I am not satisfied with the scalability of this product.

We have less than 50 concurrent users.

This is a product acquired from HPE. Before this, we were not satisfied with technical support. Micro Focus seems to be trying to improve their support quality, but we haven't seen it yet.

It doesn't take a long time to install this solution.

It's a perpetual license.

We are reviewing other solutions and looking to upgrade to Octane. We are currently, in the testing phases with Octane.

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

We have it deployed in our Data Center and it integrates with it to write a custom application on it. You have to use a sole technology, which is risky. It takes more advanced developers than someone who does JavaScript and makes web pages.

Micro Focus is selling two test management solutions, ALM/Quality Center and ALM Octane, TM, which are identical, except ones built on newer technology

The user interface is fully web-capable. It's a website, and it runs on a browser.

I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions. Similar to SmartBear TestComplete, and another solution, where they add test management into Jira. 

All of them use the same data model. You basically have a release, a cycle, and then you have requirements, you attach those to the cycle, then you have tests, and test sets made of tests. It's all the exact same thing. They got it right because everyone has copied it.

ALM is a dated application, and I am researching to see what other solutions are available.

We would like to upgrade to be more modern.

If you want to extend it, they use ActiveX which was put into a browser to go to the internet, but it never had security built into it. It is what Microsoft Office is based on.

It hasn't kept up, while others have and are adding new features and tools.

I would like to be able to use free keyword searches, where you're not just limited to SQL queries.

The software gets leapfrogged because you make a lot of investment in building something. You're selling it for five years, and meanwhile, all of the other tools are improving. Another vendor comes along to make the same thing that took you three years to build, he built it in six months.

It's all easier to make. It's always a cycle. I just look around to see where we are at in that cycle with test management software.

I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable.

I have been working with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for a decade.

We are using the latest version.

The stability of this solution is good. We never experienced any issues with bugs, glitches, or any crashes.

We have not issues with the scalability of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. It is a scalable product.

In a given day, we have 50 persistent users, then another day you may have 75 to 100 people with 30 users who are testers.

We have a contractor who supports us. The company's technical support, and it all goes through them. They are the middleman to us. They are on our site, and they run it.

I was not involved in the initial setup. It was set up by other people.

When I look back to four or five years ago, it would have been rated a 10, but now I think that it has 's probably fallen back to a six or a seven out of ten. I would rate Micros Focus ALM Quality a six out of ten.

I think if you look at the Gartner Magic Quadrant Reports, it pretty much indicates that as well.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

About four years.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.