OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Application Quality Management | 6.8% |
| Jira | 11.0% |
| Microsoft Azure DevOps | 9.5% |
| Other | 72.7% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites | Jun 25, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 25, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | OpenText Application Quality Management vs Jira | Jun 25, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | OpenText Application Quality Management vs Microsoft Azure DevOps | Jun 25, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | OpenText Application Quality Management vs Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM) | Jun 25, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jira | 4.1 | 11.0% | 91% | 284 interviewsAdd to research |
| Microsoft Azure DevOps | 4.1 | 9.5% | 95% | 137 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 30 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 28 |
| Large Enterprise | 110 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 535 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 158 |
| Large Enterprise | 474 |
Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.
What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.
OpenText Application Quality Management was previously known as Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager.
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Partner at IS Nordic AS | 4.5 | As a partner in a smaller Danish company, I've seen OpenText ALM offer significant advantages like managing multiple releases and enhanced test visibility. Despite lacking detailed ROI data, it's a valued tool among large enterprises in Denmark. |
| Senior Test Analyst at Cognizant | 3.5 | I work extensively with OpenText ALM/Quality Center, utilizing features like ping, CVC, and automation across servers, although clients are exploring alternatives due to pricing concerns. While its UI is excellent, management often shifts to tools like Jira. |
| President at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees | 3.5 | I manage testing projects with OpenText ALM Quality Center, which is highly customizable and integrates with internal applications. It effectively handles both manual and automated testing, though extracting data is difficult, and the interface needs improvement. |
| Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone | 4.5 | I use OpenText ALM Quality Center for recording user cases and tracking defects. The real-time tracking and reporting features are valuable for project management. However, I find its integration with development tools and agile support limited. |
| Sap Fico Consultant at Avient Corporation | 4.0 | We use OpenText ALM for recording testing results during our SAP implementation. It's useful for managing testing data and integrates with Excel for easy report downloads. However, the reporting functionality needs improvement due to issues with user-specific process requirements. |
| Testing and change management at WestLotto | 4.0 | We use OpenText ALM Quality Center for defect tracking and test management, valuing its customizability and comprehensive features. However, it lacks a browser-based interface, difficult user administration, and costly licenses, affecting its overall accessibility and ease of use. |
| CTO at Marco Technology | 4.0 | I use OpenText ALM / Quality Center for test management, but it has dashboard limitations and outdated UI/UX technology. Although ALM Octane is an improved version, it lacks some traditional features, making direct transfers challenging. I've also used IBM EAM. |
| Heaad of Automation Devision at Alstom Ferroviaria S.p.A. | 4.5 | We primarily use OpenText ALM for automation, valuing its integration capabilities and ability to map test cases. While the solution is effective with good ROI, the cost is high. We haven't considered alternative solutions, and our deployment is with another provider. |
| Senior Manager, Connected Home Product Management and Strategy at VWR Funding, Inc. | 4.5 | Our experience with OpenText ALM/Quality Center was positive, especially for test case and requirement management. However, we eventually switched to Jira due to cost and the desire for a streamlined, open-source solution with simpler reporting capabilities. |
| Sr Quality Assurance Engineer at Wabtec Industrial | 3.5 | I used OpenText ALM / Quality Center for test case management and requirements traceability. The most valuable feature was the Microsoft ST Add-In for easy test case uploads. However, the solution needs improvements in scalability and stability. |
We are a partner in a smaller company in Denmark. Previously, we were a very strong partner with HPE until it was sold to Micro Focus. We did a lot of MSP hosting of ALM and worked extensively with LoadRunner, the functional testing solution.
We have significant experience, although it is not our main focus currently. Many large customers in Denmark use Micro Focus products, including ALM. We definitely use them, though we are not an MSP, as we used to host ALM for about ten customers.
We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases.
Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.
We work with Jira now, and there are some very good workflows. There could be more configurable workflows regarding test case creation approval. I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market. It's not missing major features. The current Agile and SAFE mentality might require integration into tools like Jenkins or facilitate constant deployment. It is comparable to how one might not know how to improve Microsoft Word; it does its functions well, and we only use a portion of it.
If we call it ALM or Quality Center, there are various names for it. I would approximate its usage at 20 years.
I have not seen scalability problems. However, I am not sure about larger organizations. I would say it is scalable, as I have not encountered issues.
A few times, we have had to go to technical support. Sometimes it is very fast. Quality is always high yet not perfect.
Neutral
In a very small organization, the setup is extremely easy. Across ten thousand users in a large corporation, the challenge lies with process descriptions and usage rather than the tool itself. I would probably rate it an eight out of ten. The difficulty stems from the size and complexity of the organization and the contexts you are trying to explore.
Return on investment isn't something I often contemplate. I have not seen many business cases around it. In Denmark, it has been a long-term investment in large enterprises. It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management. I haven't witnessed a reduction in production errors through software investment, so I don't have exhaustive ROI calculations. However, there's a perception of ROI even if I haven't encountered the numbers confirming it.
The most beneficial feature of test management in this solution is its ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously. Our clients are usually enterprise businesses for this solution, given that Denmark is a small country. However, it's probably not the scale of multinational corporations.
The solution is rated at nine out of ten.
I am currently working a lot, having started using Amazon Prime recently. The user I worked for before has used it for four years. We have features like the ping feature and CVC, as well as the ability to download test cases. We can upload test cases and create requirements for stability metrics to ensure all the requirements are covered.
It also contains information that allows us to execute automation on all six servers. Most clients are moving out of AMM, but they are exploring other tools like Tutor and Octane, although I'm unsure why. Based on the requirements, we write plans for reviews.
We also use Microsoft Excel plugins to approach cases, operating the spaces. We applied some tool insulators to download the spaces. We ensure the draft test is executed correctly once the application is running and check the current status.
We have a ping feature similar to CVC and can download and upload test cases. We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered. It contains information that allows us to execute automation on all six servers.
Most clients are moving out of AMM and exploring tools like Tutor and Octane. We are not managing directly as people use test data for defects. We handle requests and examinations and manage them. However, people are opting for tools like Jira for management.
There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming. HPLM has one of the best UIs compared to other test management tools, allowing for efficient navigation between test pieces, test folders, test suites, and test execution.
However, users are still moving to technical tools without a good UI because of potential pricing concerns. This pricing might be prompting them to move away from HPLM towards other solutions.
I have been using the solution for four years.
The initial setup was not straightforward.
Mine is a testing project. All my requirements, test cases, test executions, and results are maintained within OpenText ALM Quality Center. Both automated and manual testing results are generated from there.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable. We can add a lot of fields and customization into the system. It allows us to maintain all requirements, test cases, test executions, and results. Both automated and manual testing results are managed, which is beneficial. The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case need improvement, though this may be resolved in the latest version. The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
We have been using OpenText ALM Quality Center for more than a year.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good. I would rate it highly.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable. Based on my experiences, I would rate its scalability at eight out of ten.
Technical support has been excellent. The team in India has been giving us a lot of support as required.
Positive
I previously used Quality Center. We chose OpenText ALM because it met the project needs, offering required capabilities and native integration with UFT.
From my team's side, there were two to three people who were involved.
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
Overall, I would place OpenText ALM Quality Center at a rating of seven out of ten. There are still improvements needed, particularly in licensing costs and the user interface.
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
From my service provider perspective, the best features of the product are real-time tracking and reporting capabilities, which help with project management by enabling real-time tracking and reporting. The user post provides process management for tracking defects, tracking test cases, and monitoring progress of awards.
Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.
I have been working with OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for five years as a service provider.
The installation can be quite challenging with lots of steps.
The solution is quite stable, with minor glitches or latency issues.
There are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.
I am mostly happy with the technical support from OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which I would rate an eight out of ten.
Positive
I am using some of these products today, specifically Jira and OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, and I am working with both solutions.
I find the pricing of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center to be a bit expensive, though the solution is quite stable.
My overall rating for OpenText ALM _ Quality Center is nine out of ten.
We use ALM to record our testing results. Our company uses SAP, and during implementation, we perform implementation testing and utilize ALM to record the results.
It is a good tool for managing testing. We can easily download the data and manage profiles.
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily.
There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements. For example, only the first user can click 'run' during testing, and subsequent users have to click 'continue manual run', which can create reporting errors. Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
We have been using it since 2022. However, we do not use it frequently and only use it when we need to conduct testing.
It is stable. I would rate stability as eight out of ten.
It is quite scalable. I would rate it eight out of ten.
I have not contacted customer support yet.
Positive
I am not the person who set it up, so I am not aware of the setup process.
I manage the costs, so I don't know if it has saved money. However, the cost seems okay for my company.
We did not evaluate other ALM solutions.
It is a good tool for managing tests.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
We use OpenText ALM Quality Center for defect tracking and test management. We test the software which we get from our suppliers and do the tests and test management.
In the beginning, OpenText ALM significantly impacted our project by reducing the time needed to handle defects to ten percent of the time it took before.
After that the reporting helped very much getting approvals from departments and auditors.
It was really good, customizable, and easy to use. Then we extended it to test plan, test lab, test executions, and test cases. We now also use the requirement module, which is also very enhanced, offering comprehensive coverage and various linking options between items. The reporting module is also great, allowing the creation of templates and presenting data in Word, PDF, or HTML formats.
The solution is not browser-based, which modern users prefer. The synchronizer tool to sync with Jira is not maintained, and it doesn't support the required encryption levels for passwords, which creates issues. Additionally, administrating users is not user-friendly. Moreover licenses are expensive so that a free read-only access would be appreciated to make information directly available to other users.
I have worked with this solution for nearly 20 years.
I have nearly no problems with it. The stability is rated nine to ten.
On a scale of one to ten, the scalability of the solution is eight to nine.
In the last few years, after multiple vendor changes, the quality of customer support has deteriorated. Initially, with Mercury or HP, the support was okay, but with Micro Focus and OpenText, I do not get any competent contact who can help me. I would rate it a two.
Negative
OpenText ALM Quality Center was the first solution we used for defect tracking and test management since the year 2000.
The initial setup is really easy. It's a guided installation procedure. Upgrades are also straightforward if you have some knowledge of databases.
The pricing is quite high. We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high. X-ray for Jira is cheaper at around $10,000 a year for five hundred users, although additional add-ons make it more expensive.
I would not recommend OpenText ALM Quality Center at the moment. I would wait until they enhance the browser-based product tree (ALM Octane) more to a solution for full functionality. If OpenText develops this product further, it could be recommended due to its comprehensive test management capabilities.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
I use the solution in my company for test management. The tool is basically used for the testing process.
The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard.
The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network.
There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.
I have been using OpenText ALM / Quality Center for more than ten years.
I rate the technical support a five out of ten.
Neutral
I have experience with IBM EAM.
The product's initial setup phase is easy.
During the product's installation phase, I will not count on the configuration part because it is based on the user requirements. Helping with the setup of the tool for a group of people in an organization can take around two or three days, including the setup and installation.
It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model.
Speaking if the tool has improved our company's life cycle management, I would say that even OpenText wants to change to an application lifecycle. The tool can be helpful for delivery and for sale.
In terms of the quality assurance features in the tool, users can see what their requirements are, and it mostly starts off with the testing phase and for high-end developments as well, and it has a requirements model. The tool is a requirements management application. The tool can be used to produce very complex health care tools.
The tool can support and execute scripts based on commands. People can do everything that is simple to be able to meet their requirements with the help of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. At the end stage, the tool can be used to judge the quality of a project.
The reporting module is included with Excel, Word, and some Microsoft reporting tools.
It is possible to integrate the tool with Excel and some other solutions.
Feature-wise, OpenText ALM / Quality Center is the best.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is a specific tool that was not from OpenText in the beginning, and I feel it was from Mercury, but it has proven to be a professional tool in terms of visibility, quality, and other such areas. I know that TCM is associated with Sentinel.
Right now, I wouldn't recommend the tool because of its price. The tool can be recommended to those who are willing to pay the money for it.
I rate the tool a seven out of ten.
Our primary use case for OpenText ALM is for automation use cases. We can map all the test cases with the requirements. The automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.
OpenText ALM helps my organization by allowing us to capture requirements and map them to the test cases, including automation test cases.
It also allows us to schedule test runs and manage everything through ALM. It provides a good return on investment since the business can clearly see what is automated and what is not, as well as check the defects raised in ALM.
The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM.
Features like BPT and the way they make it easier for end users to understand the split of test cases according to functionality are also valuable.
Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and the solution is quite effective.
I have been using OpenText ALM as a customer for three years, and we are going to complete three years this December.
I rate the stability of the solution at a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very stable.
The solution is easy to scale.
I would rate tech support nine out of ten, indicating very good support.
Positive
The initial setup is easy since it is a SaaS-based solution.
There is a good return on investment. We can map all the test cases with the requirements, and the automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.
The cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.
I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
We used ALM, specifically ALM Octane Test Manager. We utilized all the modules when we purchased a full license. However, after they were sold, we realized that we could explore other tools. We decided to update and now use Jira, which has its own developers and tools. We are happy with this change as it doesn't require any payment.
It was good when we used it, and Jira is also providing similar features now. Jira integrates with automation tools and is open-source. I was an admin for ALM and used it to monitor everything.
However, I currently don't have the time to use or update it and am not actively using it anymore.
We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It was accepted and worked well for us.
The requirement management feature was beneficial because we could pull results and perform a fixed excursion. We could also manage automation environments, combining three things into one place.
It was a good tool when it was released, but there have been many changes since then. It's good that everything is moving to the cloud now. The benefit is that manual automation and performance can be handled in one place. This allows users to access all analysis results in one location.
For modern releases, all views and graphical representations can be accessed in one place, showing the number of values, knowledge, and passes. Every tool should have these enhancements.
There are a number of blogs and sites available, but learning and using ALM requires effort due to the amount of information. It is relatively easy to use, especially if you have IT knowledge. However, nowadays, it can be difficult to find the time to learn new tools.
The reporting feature could be improved. It would be better if they simplified some things.
It requires writing queries in the setup. If we could click a button and instantly get analytics and everything in one shot, it would be easier to use.
It needs improvement in the reporting process. While graphical representations and other features exist, it requires custom code to be written. If it could be simplified with a single button to generate reports, like in TestLab, it would be easier.
A new module specifically for reporting would be helpful. Instead of integrating it into TestLab, it should be a separate module, making it easier for users.
I have over eleven years of experience with Quality Center, but I am not currently using it.
It's a good solution that we used for updating the automation system manual dash cases and pulling results. However, we have now switched to Jira.
I worked with OpenText ALM / Quality Center in 2023, starting at the beginning of the year.
I would rate the stability a seven out of ten.
I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.
Enterprise businesses are the best fit for ALM.
The customer service and support are okay.
Positive
It was previously owned by HP and other companies before being acquired by OpenText. The business continues to use the tool despite these changes. However, the market has not yet fully adapted, and the tool does not meet the requirements of resource sites.
We bought it directly from the vendor, similar to how we handle AWS. We were a customer using these products. However, after they started selling off their products one by one, we decided to switch to open-source solutions for cost savings and switched to Jira. Now, we have our own developers and tools, and everything has changed.
The initial setup is easy, but we need to manage the columns and fields that we want to use.
OpenText provides templates, which makes the installation and setup process pretty easy.
We installed it on a server before COVID-19, about four years ago. Nowadays, we are not using it anymore.
Deployment time: The installation process depends on the project length. A small project might take one or two hours, while a larger project with containers, automation scripts, and data could take longer. A typical installation for a normal project could be done in about four hours.
The pricing is expensive nowadays. The market is competitive, and there are many tools available, yet the price remains high. The price should be lower to benefit customers, especially considering the availability of similar tools.
So, the price is something they need to improve, make it less expensive.
I would recommend it to other people. Overall, it's a good solution. I would give it a nine out of ten. OpenText ALM can make improvements, but it is still a good solution.
We used Quality Center for test case management. We wrote and uploaded test cases into it, and we also executed them manually. We could track the results of the test cases, and we could also track the defects that were found.
We also used it for higher-end requirements management and traceability. The managers and other stakeholders could track the requirements and see how they were being tested.
The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
Moreover, the solution has additional features, like integration with multiple tools. For example, they have integrated with IBM Rational Integration Tester, which is a tool for API testing and web service testing. They have also integrated with Selenium.
There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution.
I have experience using this solution.
I would rate stability an eight out of ten. The solution does crash at times.
oI would rate the scalability a six out of ten. There is room for improvement here.
The initial setup is quite easy.
The deployment doesn't take much time. It is very fast.
Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It is a pretty good tool.
It's not a simple tool, but it does have a lot of features and considerations. It really depends on the level of the user. For example, some users will be working on the test execution, while senior levels will be tracking the requirement analysis. I work with both levels to track progress. So, it's a tool that can be used by people at all levels of experience.
