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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 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

IBM Engineering Lifecycle M...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
13th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is 3.7%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.0%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management5.0%
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM)3.7%
Other91.3%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

LasseMikkonen - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at byte
Has supported highly regulated documentation needs but requires a modernized user experience
I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was introduced, it was already somewhat outdated. Even though it is a professional tool, nowadays people expect at least some level of usability from their tools, regardless of how professional the task is. Additionally, if you want to utilize it on a wide scale in an organization, you need to train every person to use it. There is always a threshold for new users to start using it.
GS
Partner at IS Nordic AS
Manages multiple releases seamlessly
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space."
"Everyone in a team can work on the same platform and share the same information."
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."
"The transition to a SaaS-based solution is a distinct advantage."
"The integration with Git works well."
"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."
"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."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"The product can scale."
"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
 

Cons

"The interconnectivity between packages is a major support problem and can be improved."
"If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was introduced, it was already somewhat outdated."
"The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex."
"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."
"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."
"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."
"The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."
"Some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer."
"The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult."
"There are great features, however, transitioning between partners and managing a large number of test cases can be time-consuming."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"Recently, I faced some issues while using the product on Mac-based machines, as I was unable to upload test cases."
"Costing is an area that needs improvement."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is not cheap."
"We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."
"IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."
"This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."
"The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"This is an expensive solution."
"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."
"The solution was expensive for us."
"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
22%
Government
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Performing Arts
9%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise162
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with IBM Rational ALM?
I think usability should be improved in IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) as the top priority. If you look at the UI, it was literally designed ten years ago, and even at the time it was i...
What is your primary use case for IBM Rational ALM?
For companies in heavily regulated industries who are doing product development, IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is a good tool. It helps them create documentation that satisfies auditors.
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?
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 bottlen...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.
 

Also Known As

IBM Engineering Rhapsody, Rational ALM, MKS
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.