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

Codebeamer vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.2
Codebeamer reduces costs and administrative workload significantly, enhancing project collaboration and ROI, though ML Ops integration may be challenging.
Sentiment score
6.8
OpenText ALM boosts testing efficiency, improving management visibility, cost savings, traceability, and mapping test cases to requirements.
The solution has produced a return on investment.
Codebeamer saves time and money for certain use cases, such as AUTOSPICE implementations.
It acts as an enabler for effective test and program management.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Codebeamer's customer support is strong with prompt responses, appreciated live chat, but documentation needs improvement, especially in Chinese.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's customer service varies, with effective high-level support but delays and mixed expertise at lower levels.
If I raise an issue as high priority, I receive responses in six to eight hours.
For out-of-the-box support, the customer service from PTC is satisfactory.
Technical support has been excellent.
Quality is always high yet not perfect.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Codebeamer stands out for its scalability, outperforming competitors, praised by enterprise users for flexible, efficient performance.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM Quality Center is praised for scalability, handling many users well, though licensing and resources can be restrictive.
In a project, I have experienced up to 180 licenses running during peak times and as low as ten licenses during downtime without facing upgrade or downgrade issues.
OpenText ALM Quality Center is definitely scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Codebeamer is praised for its stability, with high ratings, despite occasional issues with version compatibility and server strain.
Sentiment score
7.2
Users find OpenText ALM stable, with occasional lags under heavy load, but overall high reliability and uptime with proper setup.
Running it independently or with a bigger server generally doesn't cause any issues.
There were stability issues due to version compatibility.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Room For Improvement

Codebeamer needs better usability, industry features, integration, analytics, and market presence, especially in China, with improved UI and documentation.
OpenText ALM faces high costs, complex interface, limited browser compatibility, and lacks flexible integration with Agile processes and tools.
Codebeamer struggles with some DevOps integrations and lacks AI features for enhanced user assistance.
If terminology changes, modifications must be done manually or by exporting the document to Word or Excel, which is time-consuming.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
I see a stable tool that remains relevant in the market.
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.
 

Setup Cost

Codebeamer is moderately priced with valuable modules, aligning with standards for enterprises seeking comprehensive ALM solutions.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high pricing necessitates strategic financial planning, with costs varying by deployment, user volume, and licensing.
Codebeamer is on the expensive side, but it provides ready-made modules for standards like ASPICE and ISO 26262, which might justify the cost for customers looking for those solutions.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Valuable Features

Codebeamer excels in traceability, integration, and ease of use, offering robust tools for project management and regulatory compliance.
OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for managing manual and automated testing efficiently.
Codebeamer saves on time and resources with its web-based client, eliminating the need to install it on every system.
Its integration capability is very high, with almost eighty to eighty-five percent of integrations available readily out of the box, minimizing the need for specific integration-related work.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results.
We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered.
 

Categories and Ranking

Codebeamer
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
10th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
207
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of Codebeamer is 8.5%, up from 5.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

SHRINIVAS ALAGERI - PeerSpot reviewer
Built-in project management modules simplify processes while compatibility improvements are needed
Codebeamer could improve its customization capabilities and integration options. For instance, older versions of PDM Windchill ( /products/ptc-windchill-reviews ) face compatibility issues with newer versions of Codebeamer, requiring users to downgrade Codebeamer to establish integration. The installation on Linux can be tricky, and backward compatibility needs enhancement. Also, Codebeamer struggles with some DevOps integrations and lacks AI features for enhanced user assistance.
Paul Grossman - PeerSpot reviewer
Range of supported technology expands, but odd IDE design still leave newbies and pro users alike disappointed.
There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed. While I have a larger list of issues that make day to day work harder than it needs to be, these are the Top Five that I do wish would capture someone's attention in upcoming releases. All hit the tool's ROI pretty hard. #1) Jump To Source - The Silent Code Killer: In older QTP versions a double-click on any function in the Toolbox window would take the developer to the function's source code, while a drag from the Toolbox would add it to the code window. Since 12.0 a double-click on a function in UFT's Toolbox window now ADDS the function (same as drag) to the Code window - to whatever random location the cursor happens to be at - even if it is off screen, and it will replace sections of code if it is highlighted. We are not sure what the intention was, but our Best Practice is to avoid the Toolbox window entirely to avoid the real danger of losing days of work and needless bug hunts. Now Jump to Source is not all bad. A right-click on any function called from a Script takes us to the code source, which is great! But it only half works: in a Library, only for functions declared within the same library. Our advance designs have well over twelve libs so a whole lot of extra time is spent searching the entire project for a function's source on a daily basis. Lastly, while we can add custom methods to object, a Jump To Source from these methods is long overdue. So again our only option is to search the entire project. #2) Object Spy: It needs to have multiple instances so that you can compare multiple object properties side-by-side. It lacks a Refresh button, so that automation engineers can quickly identify the property changes of visible and invisible objects. Or HP could skip to option #3... #3) Add RegEx integer support for .Height or .Width object properties when retrieving object collections. If this were possible, our framework could return collections that contain only visible objects that have a .height property greater that zero. (Side Note: the .Visible property has not returned a False value for us in nearly five years - a recent developer decision, not a product issue) Eliminating the need to separate the non-visible objects from visible ones would decrease execution time dramatically. (Another side note: Our experiments to RegEx integer-based .Height properties found that we could get a collection of just invisible objects. Exactly the opposite of what we needed.) #4) The shortcut to a treasure trove of sample code in the latest release 14.0 has been inexplicably removed. This impeeds new users from having an easy time learning the tool's advanced capability. In fact the only users daring enough to go find it now will be you who is reading this review. #5) Forced Return to Script Code. This again is a no-brainer design flaw. Let's say we run a script and throw an error somewhere deep in our function library. Hey it happens. In prior QTP versions when the Stop button would be clicked the tool would leave you right there at the point where the error occurred to fix. Now in recent releases, UFT always takes us back to the main Script, far from that code area that needed immediate attention.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
15%
Healthcare Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Educational Organization
68%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about codeBeamer ALM?
The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for codeBeamer ALM?
Codebeamer is on the expensive side, but it provides ready-made modules for standards like ASPICE and ISO 26262, which might justify the cost for customers looking for those solutions.
What needs improvement with codeBeamer ALM?
Codebeamer could improve its customization capabilities and integration options. For instance, older versions of PDM Windchill ( /products/ptc-windchill-reviews ) face compatibility issues with new...
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

codeBeamer ALM
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Medtronic, Align Technology, Daimler, Samsung, Harman, Dassault
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.