ALM/QC - Probably Not the Best
Updated February 25, 2020

ALM/QC - Probably Not the Best

Chris Oros | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 4 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Micro Focus Application Lifecycle Management / Quality Center (ALM/QC)

ALM/QC is used within our IT department, specifically within our development and customer application departments. We currently only use ALM/QC for our lower test environments, and not for production. ALM/QC is used for a variety of tasks: creating work items to assign to a resource (DBA, Developer, Analyst, etc.), creating ad-hoc requests for others to carry out, tracking defects and development of defect solutions as they move from test to production, as well as for project-related tasks.
  • ALM/QC has a very useful function of sending an email directly to an assignee when they are selected. This is a time-saver so that you don't have to follow up with your own email every time you assign a ticket.
  • Tracking the history of changes made whenever someone modifies a ticket is a big plus for ALM/QC.
  • Ease in attaching items and linking tickets to other tickets allows for quick UI navigation.
  • Licensing behind ALM/QC can pose a problem if many users will be accessing it. If an IT project is occurring, and many testers, analysts, developers, architects, PMs, etc. are using ALM/QC, there exists a problem in too many users being in the environment at once and causing active users to be kicked out. Having many licenses will alleviate this issue, but the trade-off is expense.
  • One of the great features of ALM/QC is that it sends emails. However, when this doesn't occur, and you assume that it does, it can be frustrating, as the assignee of a ticket will have no way of knowing something is assigned to them (or at least won't know in a timely manner, until they manually check themselves).
  • UI and navigation layout seems dated, as if it is a late 90s product. Many similar looking fields can be confusing to users and cause them to miss something because they are not able to discern.
  • ALM/QC has allowed for quick, traceable turnaround on relatively simple tasks
  • ALM/QC allows us to achieve our business objective of always being able to refer to a documented ticket for work being done.
  • ALM/QC navigation is not the easiest, so this aspect of the product has caused great frustration among new users.
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 phases and lifecycle of IT processes. There is a notable lack of cohesion among certain functions of ALM/QC, almost as if separate products were purchased and then consolidated into one product.
Support for ALM/QC is responsive, but because the product is lacking in some areas, the response is not always helpful. This is a scenario where you can't blame the messenger. Shortcomings in ALM/QC are usually explained to be "intended functionality" or the client having an unorthodox use of the product.

Do you think Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center delivers good value for the price?


Are you happy with Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center's feature set?


Did Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center live up to sales and marketing promises?

I wasn't involved with the selection/purchase process

Did implementation of Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center go as expected?


Would you buy Micro Focus ALM / Quality Center again?


ALM/QC is well suited for assigning relatively quick, simple tasks to IT resources. I do not feel it is a holistically good product in terms of retaining a knowledge base for IT areas or problems. For example, the amount of clicking, different windows, and navigation that needs to occur to track an original issue through to its analysis, to its solution development, to its deployment is a very time-consuming and cumbersome task. It would be fair to say that the product was not intended for this, but it offers features to accommodate this, so it's also legitimate to criticize this aspect of the product.