OpenText Application Quality Management vs Polarion ALM comparison

OpenText and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. OpenText is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Siemens is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.4. OpenText holds a 5.0% mindshare in ALM, compared to Siemens’s 6.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

6,509 Views
3,905 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

Polarion ALM

Read 24 Polarion ALM reviews

3,475 Views
3,197 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

Polarion ALM

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management and Polarion ALM compete in the application lifecycle management category. OpenText seems to have the upper hand due to its extensive reporting and integration features, though both products offer strong traceability capabilities.

Features: OpenText Application Quality Management supports robust traceability from bugs to requirements, is web-based for global access, and offers a customizable API. It is ideal for large enterprises with flexible licensing options. Its reporting and integration features enhance test case execution and defect management. Polarion ALM manages requirements effectively, provides efficient traceability, and supports real-time collaboration. Its all-in-one approach facilitates ease of use across departments.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Application Quality Management faces high licensing costs, complex project tracking, and limited compatibility with only Internet Explorer supported. Users report rigid reporting features and lack of seamless Agile integration. Polarion ALM has a complex user interface, making initial adaptation difficult without extensive training. Integration with third-party tools can be cumbersome, and planning features need development.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Application Quality Management offers flexible deployment options and generally responsive customer service, though technical support varies in expertise and responsiveness. Polarion ALM supports a range of deployment environments, but customers report mixed experiences with slow response times and inconsistent support quality.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Application Quality Management is high-priced, reflecting enterprise-level features, which may be prohibitive for smaller organizations. Its licensing model is seen as inflexible, though ROI is justified for enhanced traceability. Polarion ALM is also expensive, limiting its appeal for smaller businesses, but offers comprehensive features that make it a worthwhile investment for large organizations.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,821 peers since 2012

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

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)

Polarion ALM

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 5.0%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion ALM is 6.1%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	5.0%
Polarion ALM	6.1%
Other	88.9%

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Greg Stone

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.

Read full review

LasseMikkonen

CEO at byte

Has provided mature traceability and configuration features while supporting complex product development for mid-to-large companies

Polarion ALM can learn from Atlassian tools a lot, as the usability is not the best, and it is really narrowly focused on requirements management only. For example, if you want to do testing and test result management with it, it is very limited. Jama Connect has similar limitations, and both should really focus on developing the integrations and extendability. For example, Jama Connect does not even have an extension marketplace, whereas Polarion has a small one. However, compared to the Atlassian Marketplace where you can get whatever applications for whatever price, it is a totally different ballgame. I would highly recommend Polarion ALM add more AI features to it. I know they have started to do something, but for example, I have been developing widgets for IBM DOORS Next, AI widgets, so that you can write and analyze requirements with the AI, and I have also done the same for Jira, creating a couple of Jira applications in the marketplace as well.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."

"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."

"The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab."

"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."

"The independent view of elevated access is good."

"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."

"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."

"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

"You can see the work ticket and you can circulate that within the teams. You can define your flows, customize according to your needs, and you can create dashboards and create the reports according to your needs."

"Polarion ALM is excellent for tracking who is working on what and how many people are involved in a project."

"It meets with everybody's needs without having to grab plugins."

"The tool's most valuable feature is its browser experience. I rate its traceability feature a ten out of ten. From the initial stage to the release, you can manage everything through a single point."

"It's extremely flexible. Configuring items is straightforward and doesn't require involving the supplier each time. We find the requirement management, test management, documentation, and dashboards very effective."

"Polarion ALM helps us better structure our customer requirements, and we can also validate the specs of our products against those. If anything changes on our side, we see the impact, and we can see the effect If a customer changes requirements."

"It is a very stable solution."

"Polarion ALM's integration is very good and easy to use."

More Polarion ALM pros

Cons

"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."

"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."

"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."

"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."

"The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly."

"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"

"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."

"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."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

"Based on my understanding, the tool's integration capabilities with multiple tools is an area of concern that Polarion needs to focus on more."

"The system’s technology is not the most current, leading to missing features that are common in web-based applications."

"The user interface is not yet optimized."

"As Polarion ALM is a development-oriented tool, easy support or easy access is provided by default, but if I want to use detailed features, I need to write the script, particularly the VM script, and this is its area for improvement. I want Polarion ALM to have a graphical user interface that doesn't need scripting. In the next release of the tool, I'd like for it to not require scripting and programming because needing to run script language is time-consuming."

"The ease-of-use could be improved a little."

"The solution's editing capabilities need improvement."

"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and a server-based application rather than client based."

"One of Polarion's shortcomings would be planning. It can handle plans, but the planning feature is very basic."

More Polarion ALM cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

"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."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"It's a perpetual license."

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"Compared to the market, the price is high."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

"You have to pay around 50-60 euros per user."

"If the pricing would come down and it was more affordable then we wouldn't have to switch."

"It is an expensive product."

"Software for medical devices is always expensive."

"The license model is okay for large companies but would be quite expensive for smaller enterprises."

"Our license for Polarion ALM is yearly. And it's not the cheapest tool that we've looked at. So if we had made our decision purely based on the licensing cost, we wouldn't have selected Polarion."

"The solution is expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Performing Arts

Marketing Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

29%

Computer Software Company

11%

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	39
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	162

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	10
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	12

Questions from the Community

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polarion ALM?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Polarion ALM?

We are in our product development using Polarion ALM's functionalities. I am a power user, partly responsible for configuring the tool. We are using it for many things. The idea was to go for a req...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Polarion ALM?

The pricing of Polarion ALM and IBM ELM is pretty much aligned. They are not at the same level, but I would say aligned according to the capabilities of the tools, with DOORS being more expensive b...

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 17% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 7% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 6% of the time

Rally Software vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Codebeamer vs Polarion ALM

Compared 27% of the time

Jira vs Polarion ALM

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Polarion ALM

Compared 11% of the time

Jama Connect vs Polarion ALM

Compared 7% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion ALM

Compared 3% of the time

More Polarion ALM Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

January 2026

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion ALM

January 2026

Download Polarion ALM product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText

The world’s first 100% browser-based ALM enterprise solution, which enables seamless collaboration across disparate teams, multi-directionally linked work items, full traceability, accelerated productivity and automated proof of compliance.

Siemens

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

Engineering Ingegneria Informatica, IBS AG, Zumtobel Group

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM

February 2026

Free Report: OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Application Quality Management vs. Polarion ALM report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.