OpenText Application Quality Management vs PractiTest comparison

OpenText and PractiTest are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. OpenText is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.2, while PractiTest is ranked #23. OpenText holds a 4.6% mindshare in ALM, compared to PractiTest’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of PractiTest users who would recommend it.

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

5,872 Views
3,523 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

PractiTest

Read 7 PractiTest reviews

599 Views
323 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

PractiTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

OpenText Application Quality Management and PractiTest are competing products in the software testing solutions category. PractiTest has the upper hand due to its user-friendly approach and superior features deemed worth the cost according to user reviews.

Features: OpenText Application Quality Management offers strong integration features, seamless connection with enterprise systems, and extensive test management capabilities. PractiTest provides extensive customizability and visualization features, a holistic view of the testing process, and a more intuitive feature set, simplifying the testing process effectively.

Room for Improvement: OpenText could enhance usability for a more streamlined user experience, improve the test execution interface for ease of use, and expand API capabilities for better connectivity. PractiTest may improve integration options with more diverse tools, offer more advanced analytics for deeper insights, and expand documentation to support complex configurations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText, being a complex system, may require a longer deployment time but offers extensive customer support options. PractiTest’s cloud-based model facilitates quicker implementation and provides dedicated support aimed at simplifying user processes, appearing more streamlined in deployment.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText's pricing model is cost-effective for large enterprises with a potentially higher upfront cost offset by long-term benefits. PractiTest offers a scalable pricing structure appealing for smaller teams, providing a favorable return on investment. PractiTest proves advantageous for those valuing scalability and quick ROI, while OpenText caters to larger operational budgets.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

4th

Ranking in Test Management Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Quality Management Software (1st)

PractiTest

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

23rd

Ranking in Test Management Tools

17th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 4.6%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PractiTest is 1.1%, up from 0.3% 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	4.6%
PractiTest	1.1%
Other	94.3%

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

Dave Carter

Test Team Lead at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees

Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat

It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.

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

"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."

"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."

"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."

"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."

"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."

"We can create a requirement for stability metrics with the test cases to ensure all requirements are covered."

"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily."

"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."

Cons

"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."

"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."

"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."

"Recently, I faced some issues while using the product on Mac-based machines, as I was unable to upload test cases."

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

"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."

"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."

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

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."

"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."

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

"It is very expensive as compared to other tools. We didn't get their premier version. It is a lesser version, and to upgrade, there will be an additional cost for us."

"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most 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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Performing Arts

Government

Financial Services Firm

15%

Government

University

Manufacturing Company

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	2
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	1

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 9% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 9% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 8% of the time

Rally Software vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

Parasoft Development Testing Platform vs PractiTest

Compared 13% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs PractiTest

Compared 13% of the time

Jira vs PractiTest

Compared 13% of the time

TestRail vs PractiTest

Compared 13% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs PractiTest

Compared 9% of the time

More PractiTest 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

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

December 2025

Download PractiTest 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

Manage your QA and Testing process, controlling your testing tasks while getting complete visibility into your results, and most importantly releasing your products in a professional way

Professional end to end QA management for your manual and automation testing.

Create your manual tests and organize them based on cycles, sprints, etc.
Seamlessly integrate your manual testing with your automation and CI processes.
Reuse tests and correlate results across different releases and products.
Release your products with confidence and control.

PractiTest

Sample Customers

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

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest report.

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