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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs PractiTest 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

OpenText Application Qualit...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
3rd
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
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText Application Quality Management is 8.5%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PractiTest is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management8.5%
PractiTest1.5%
Other90.0%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

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.
DC
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Good test management tool."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"From my perspective, it's a great tool, however, the world is now moving towards DevOps."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"Helps in providing an archive of test suites for easy regression."
"It is stable and reliable."
"As far as we know, it's the best tool on the market right now."
"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."
"Helped organise the manual test cases so they were documented correctly, which was invaluable as it allowed for reviewing and improving of test scripts so they could be followed by a number of different people which helped with resourcing."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"Technical support of PractiTest is awesome. They are always ready to help in any time zone, which makes them stand out from others."
"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."
"In addition, we found PractiTest very user-friendly and customizable."
"PractiTest gives us the opportunity to control the testing process efficiently and saves us a lot of time that we had to spend while using other tools."
 

Cons

"It’s too expensive for most organizations compared to some other tools on the market."
"There are a lot of features in ALM which should be implemented into Quality Center, especially as ALM and Quality Center are integrated."
"The technical support from the vendor is weak, as I believe the back end script support for the tool is not easy to access and modify by the customer."
"HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"My personal satisfaction level with HP service and support website is low."
"Tech support is very, very poor. There is no coordination between product groups, you have to repeat the same information multiple times, features that are fixed end up breaking in the next release, and releases and upgrades do not fix problems as promised."
"The UI is becoming somewhat dated but that shouldn't be a deal breaker."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."
"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution was expensive for us."
"This is an expensive solution."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."
"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."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."
"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise1
 

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
No data available
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Application Quality Management vs. PractiTest and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.