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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Original Software Qualify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 20, 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

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
Quality Management Software (4th), Test Management Tools (1st)
Original Software Qualify
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
42nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 4.9%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Original Software Qualify is 0.4%, up from 0.0% 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 Management4.9%
Original Software Qualify0.4%
Other94.7%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Konstantinos Tasiopoulos - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support
I've been using the latest version of Original Software Qualify AQM. Over 100 users in our company use Original Software Qualify AQM. We only have two people in charge of its deployment and maintenance. This software is extensively used in our company. Personally, I recommend Original Software Qualify AQM to other people looking into implementing it. You can do a lot of things with this software. The support is very good. The communication is very good, and they also listen to problems raised. They add new features and functionalities as a response to past problems or issues. It's a very good tool and I recommend it. We've seen a return on investment from this software. I'm rating Original Software Qualify AQM a nine out of ten, because of several reasons: It's very good software, it's a supportive company, and we have very good results from it. This software also minimizes the effort of UATs, and it also allows us to deploy whatever we want.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"OpenText ALM Quality Center is highly customizable."
"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
 

Cons

"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."
"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements."
"Return on investment isn't something I often contemplate. I have not seen many business cases around it."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"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."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"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."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"The cost of licensing depends on the number of VMs that you are running test cases on and it is not cheap."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"The pricing is expensive nowadays."
"It's a perpetual license."
"This software is moderately priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Performing Arts
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business39
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
No data available
 

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.
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
CertainTeed, Marston's,  Edrington, Ageas,  iPERS.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: September 2025.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.