OpenText™ ALM/Quality Center, formerly from Micro Focus, serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps users to govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.
N/A
Pricing
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Free Trial
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Considered Both Products
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Verified User
Project Manager
Chose OpenText ALM/Quality Center
We ultimately opted for the Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center since it offers best in class features and good value for money.
We have various criteria as a part of the requirements in which we gathered from teams. We started evaluating each requirement across the tools, and we started providing score ranges from 1-10 and the Quality center holds top to that. Some of them are listed below:
Firstly, it's a management decision to use HP Quality Center. But if you ask me why I would recommend Quality Center over other products is majorly because of automated regression testing, user interface, security/authorization restrictions and reporting features.
Other …
ALM/QC does not stack up too well against other lifecycle management products, in my opinion. ALM/QC does good in certain areas, such as the quick assigning of tasks to be done, but it falls short in too many areas in terms of being a realistic product to use for the different …
We have selected ServiceNow (SNOW) in lieu of HP Application Lifecycle Management. SNOW allows complete integration into our internal corporate web-based systems where ALM does not. Because of this complete integration, we are able to provide users with a consistent user …
We require a project management tool for waterfall projects with very heavy testing cycles (4-5 regression cycles), definitely no other tool in the market provides the level of support for test management that HP ALM provides.
Quality Center does a great job on its own and is still a very competitive tool. However, with newer methodologies coming and most of the companies moving towards Agile, it requires an upgrade - without which, it will not survive. It has done a great job so far for years …
We require a project management tool for waterfall projects with very heavy testing cycles (4-5 regression cycles), definitely no other tool in the market provides the level of support for test management that HP ALM provides.
HP is unique in its own way. We chose HP because it is standard and an end-to-end solution. However, we also use other tools for the same work that we currently do. HP is good for waterfall projects. It has an excellent defect management module.
HP ALM has always been the best tool in the industry for QA management. Thoroughly trusted and used by the top-notch organization through the industry. The USP is the total coverage of Test Cycle which other tools lack.
I was not responsible for selection of ALM. Given the size of the company of the client I am engaged with who is using it, I would have picked something with similar features like Rally or VersionOne. These tools are far easier to use - less clicks! The choice, however, was …
HP Quality Center and IBM Rational Team Concert have an option for a sync up which allows a person to automatically create a defect on rational team concert from a Quality Center note just by using a sync up button. Though HP quality centre does not give us many options to …
There is a desire from some areas in the company to move to TFS and Microsoft Test Manager. The issue with the MS tool set is that they are more geared for developers rather than testers and business users, so great for Agile (assuming developers do carry out testing) but if …
For requirements, we have also reviewed Blue Print, Version One, etc. Currently, the go forward solution is being decided. Whatever the final requirements application is, integration with HP ALM will be done to support traceability.
We have other tools in our organization like Atlassian JIRA and Microsoft Team Foundation Server, which are very capable tools but very narrow in their approach and feature set and does not come even close to the some of the core capabilities of HP ALM.
We have had ALM back when it was called QC (Quality Center) and this was before my time, so I cannot say why it was chosen over other applications. I do know that it has been our defacto standard for many years now and all users of the program are very happy with it.
HP needs to have better support for agile testing as compared to JIRA. JIRA also has some powerful integration using REST APIs. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to HP QC.
HP ALM is the best for tracking testing no questions about it, it is more robust and mature than JIRA or IBM Rational. It has the capability to track not only test, requirements and even software or project development. Reports can be easily configured and produced from ALM, …
For an organisation that has completely adopted SAFe structure including naming terminology, it is less appropriate and apart from that. It can suit any organisation out there, and it can solve all your problems one way or another by customising it. It is a robust and highly scalable solution to support all the business needs. It improves a lot of productivity and visibility.
If you have a mix of automation & manual test suites, HPALM is the best tool to manage that. It definitely integrates very well with HP automation tools like HP Unified Functional Testing and HP LoadRunner. Automated Suites can be executed, reports can be maintained automatically. It also classifies which test suites are manual & which are automated & managers can see the progress happening in moving from manual to automated suites. In HPA ALM all the functional test suites, performance test suites, security suites can be defined, managed & tracked in one place.
It is a wonderful tool for test management. Whether you want to create test cases, or import it, from execution to snapshot capturing, it supports all activities very well. The linking of defects to test runs is excellent. Any changes in mandatory fields or status of the defect triggers an e-mail and sent automatically to the user that the defect is assigned to.
It also supports devops implementation by interacting with development tool sets such as Jenkins & GIT. It also bring in team collaboration by supporting collaboration tools like Slack and Hubot.
This tool can integrate to any environment, any source control management tool bringing in changes and creates that trace-ability and links between source control changes to requirements to tests across the sdlc life-cycle.
The requirements module is not as user friendly as other applications, such as Blue Bird. Managing requirements is usually done in another tool. However, having the requirements in ALM is important to ensure traceability to tests and defects.
Reporting across multiple ALM repositories is not supported within the tool. Only graphs are included within ALM functionality. Due to size considerations, one or two projects is not a good solution. Alternatively, we have started leveraging the template functionality within ALM and are integrating with a third party reporting tool to work around this issue.
NET (not Octane) requires a package for deployment to machines without administrative rights. Every time there is a change, a new package must be created, which increases the time to deploy. It also forces us to wait until multiple patches have been provided before updating production.
Because it lets me track the test cases with detailed scenarios and is clearly separated in folders. Also the defect filter helps me filter only the ones that have been assigned to a particular area of interest. The availability of reports lets me see the essentials fields which I might be missing the data on and helps me to work on these instead of having to go through everything.
It is a great tool, however, it got this rating because there is a lot of learning that takes a lot longer than other tools. There are no mobile versions of ALM even with just a project summary view. I believe ALM is well capable of integration with other analytics tools that can help business solutions prediction based on current and past project data. This is Data held in ALM but with no other use apart from human reading and project progress. ALM looks like a steady platform that I believe can handle more dynamic functionality. You could add an internal communication platform that is not a third party. Limit that communication tool to specific project members.
We have other tools in our organization like Atlassian JIRA and Microsoft Team Foundation Server, which are very capable tools but very narrow in their approach and feature set and does not come even close to the some of the core capabilities of HP ALM. HP ALM is the "System of Record" in our organization. It gives visibility for an artifact throughout the delivery chain, which cut downs unnecessary bottlenecks and noise during releases.