Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Atlassian ALM vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Atlassian ALM
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
17th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Atlassian ALM is 1.8%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.5%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

ZX
Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes
We have both small-sized and big-sized customers. The small ones generally have around 50 to 200 users. The larger ones, for example, in China, have around 15,000 platform users. So, the number of small companies is high, but the total business value comes from the big companies. Atlassian ALM can handle different user volumes. For customers with more than 500 users, we recommend deploying a high availability (HA) architecture. The solution supports both single-node and HA modes. I would rate the scalability a five out of ten. It could be better in terms of scalability with more users. It could be improved to better handle larger numbers of users. We have clients using Atlassian ALM both in China and globally. We have around 20 clients using this solution.
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the Scrum board."
"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."
"This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"It has a good response time."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."
"It is stable and reliable."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
 

Cons

"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."
"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."
"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"Return on investment isn't something I often contemplate. I have not seen many business cases around it."
"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a community edition available, but if the price were lower for the addons then more people would use the full version."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"This is an expensive solution."
"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."
"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 less people were able to use it for their projects."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
9%
Educational Organization
49%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Atlassian ALM?
The most valuable feature is the Scrum board.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Atlassian ALM?
The pricing is on the higher side. I would give it an eight out of ten, where one is low, and ten is high.
What needs improvement with Atlassian ALM?
There is room for improvement in the high-level project management. In future releases, I would like to have a planning feature for high-level project management.
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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 mar...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Facebook, NASA, Cisco, eBay, Redfin, Toyota, Kaiser Permanente, Gilt, CSIRO, Autodesk, The Daily Telegraph, CODE, Illumnia
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian ALM vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.