No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center vs OpenText Application Quality Management comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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

Interfacing Technologies En...
Ranking in Quality Management Software
36th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (137th), Business Process Management (BPM) (59th), GRC (42nd), Document Management Software (18th)
OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Quality Management Software
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
208
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Quality Management Software category, the mindshare of Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center is 1.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 3.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Quality Management Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management3.3%
Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center1.9%
Other94.8%
Quality Management Software
 

Featured Reviews

SantoshKulkarni1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
A Robust Solution with Enhanced Automation and Process Improvement Identification Capabilities
I recommend that users invest more time in the initial setup of the process architecture within the tool. It is crucial to spend time designing how the process architecture works as it significantly impacts how the tool behaves. This upfront investment can prevent the need for extensive reworking later on.
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 notable software-related benefit from a user perspective is our improved ability to identify opportunities for automation and process enhancement just by gaining a clearer view of the processes. There are two valuable aspects. First, setting up the process architecture is commendable. Second, not having to maintain different versions of processes is a notable benefit. The solution is stable. The support team is responsive."
"The most valuable feature is the integrated manner in which all the capabilities of the Enterprise Process Center platform work together and make it easier to complete the documentation of processes."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"The solution overall is very good and very solid."
"The ability to have visibility of manual and automated test results within the one product certainly cuts down on the management overhead and eases the creation of project health reports."
"The reports we can generate are better."
"Quality Center has definitely added value as it has easy accessibility for all our employees and is very useful for defect triage and scrum meetings."
"Within thirty days the defect resolution time was reduced to 3.1 days and averaged 1.1 days over the next eighteen (18) months."
"It provides us with common development and test workflow for defect management."
"ALM is for sure scalable."
 

Cons

"As with all such platforms, Enterprise Process Center is a complex tool and there are many capabilities and features that take time to learn."
"However, on the process mining side, there's potential for improvement to gain deeper insights into process functionality. Additionally, there's always room for enhancement in the user interface."
"The only thing I would add is that I was really looking forward towards the new generation filler that was coming."
"Setup and upgrades are complex. Probably one of my biggest issues with the product is that it's so complex and hard to do."
"Licensing model is relatively expensive compared to alternate solutions."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"I've faced a couple of bugs in the product whereby we were not able to open attachments on a particular ticket."
"The UI is terrible in the sense that we actually use automation scripts to avoid being in the UI, which is just fascinating, and then the data model."
"Some improvement to the Requirements Management are needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to understand what options you believe you are going to want to implement and rollout in the first three to five years, but spend the most time understanding what the set-up costs and pricing will be in the first two or maybe three."
"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"The solution is priceed high."
"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."
"The solution was expensive for us."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Quality Management Software solutions are best for your needs.
918,169 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
22%
Computer Software Company
18%
Healthcare Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

Enterprise Process Center
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Pepsi-Cola Manufacturing International Ltd., Pfizer Deutschland GmbH, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer S.p.A., KPMG, Royal Australian Air, Orange
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about Interfacing Technologies Enterprise Process Center vs. OpenText Application Quality Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
918,169 professionals have used our research since 2012.