OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Dashboard
• Reporting
• Version control
• Requirements Management
• Test Lab
• Defect tracking and management

Easier Test Lab management and defect life-cycle tracking, which is useful during triage calls.

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.

• Include project planning and tracking
• Include defect sharing
• There are a lot of features in ALM which should be implemented into Quality Center, especially as ALM and Quality Center are integrated.
  

I've used it for six years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

9/10

Technical Support:

8/10

We previously used Bugzilla and switched because Quality Center is easier to use, has good reporting, and has better accessibility.

Initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it in-house.

100%

There are many free-ware tools available, which you can try.

• Bugzilla
• JIRA

We are using the solution for multiple purposes: test management, defect tracking, traceability, requirement tracking, and test execution.

We're regulated by the FDA so the number of manual signatures and paper-based signatures was reduced. We have had less waste, have been able to collaborate more, and have saved time.

In future releases I'd like to see better reporting, a more simplified UI, and improved metrics. It would also good if they removed some features to simplify the solution. It only supports internet explorer right now, so it would be good if it could support other browsers. Browser costs are also fairly high.

Pretty stable.

It has been fairly scalable.

HP support is good and they are very responsive. They're not world class, but they're good.

We used Word documents, which was not efficient.

Though we only purchased ALM less than a year ago, we believe ROI is good.

Prospective buyers should know that it doesn’t support all browsers and that browser costs are high.

• Requirements Management
• Test Management
• Test Execution
• Defect Management
• Business Model
• Traceability
• Test configuration
• Test Parameters
• Integration with HPE UFT and HPE LoadRunner

All the options are designed so if you are using this tool for Test Management, then you must have them all enabled for efficient use.

It has basic and advanced facilities that allow you to arrange all of your test data in very well arranged, systematic manner.

Graphs can be further improved to manage more requirements at a time.

We have you used this solution for seven years.

We never encountered any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability. It depends on the number of licenses. If you have them all active at the time, it still responds the same way, which is fast.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We used Excel, but it was so difficult to manage the various Excel files and sheets just like maintaining a register book for your records. ALM allows you to handle them all with just one click.

The initial setup was straightforward as it it required little knowledge of the server to do a simple server-side installation.

If we have huge data and more number of users managing the data, then ALM is the best option for our organization. It also applies if your team is distributed, out-sourced or in-sourced.

We did not evaluate other options. I was aware of their earlier version which had a very good market and feedback, I didn't have to waste my time doing a PoC on any other product.

You must look to implement the minimum system requirements, Configuration, for the server for optimum and efficient use.

• Traceability
• Ability to reuse test cases
• Reports

We now know more about how to test.

Import Library - Synchronization problems are often because the ALM interconnection with HP Solution Manager is too fragile.

I've been using it for six years.

We had a problem with the consultant.

Not really. Our big problem is that our in-house support of Solution Manager is not compatible. It's not a fault with the product.

For migration from v10 to v11, we needed to convert manually each project because the HP consultant, and our project chief, couldn't use ROBOT in Apache.

Customer Service:

6/10.

Technical Support:

5/10.

MS Excel was our first solution.

We paid for an HP consultant who wasn't experienced. They called everyday about everything to the central development team of HP.

It's not so good because some users don't see its real potential because they are afraid they will lose their job.

Keep it simple for an easy beginning, and don't waste time with incompetent people.

• Test Management
• Reporting
• Defect Management
• RTM
• Requirement Management

Quality Center has helped my organization in monitoring the testing process and improving productivity. The test execution and creation monitoring feature in Quality Center is one of the most advanced features available in the industry. You can easily track the testing process as minute as test cases executed on a particular system.

Almost all of the areas are very advanced, but one module which needs improvement is report extraction, and billing module is missing.

I've used it for eight years.

No issues encountered.

Too many users logged in at a particular time affects the Quality Center response time dramatically.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

It's excellent.

Technical Support:

It's excellent.

There was no previous solution was in place.

It was very easy and straightforward.

We used a mix of an in-house team and a vendor team.

We've seen ROI, but I can't share any specifics.

Pricing is high, but with new tools available in the market at a lower price, it is worth doing a decision analysis and resolution.

• Mantis
• JIRA

There are so many other tools available in market, so before investing a huge amount in Quality Center, you should analyze other tools as well.

Traceability of bugs to script execution (Test Lab) to Script (Test Plan) to Requirements, Easy to use. Web based, so it is easily accessible at multiple sites worldwide.

Expensive Maintenance & Support (M&S), Annual fee.

What I love about it is that it can be used for the entire lifecycle (from requirements to release) and the dashboard is great for reporting.

The organization I am currently with does not use ALM. I recently moved. At AMC, we began using it during my tenure. When I got there, it was shelfware and they were using spreadsheets. ALM improved our ability to share reports which were understandable to all levels of business. Also having all the bugs for all the projects in one place instead of in a spreadsheet allowed more visibility of issues to all teams. Having test cases in ALM also helped us with spending less time doing rework. Being able to reuse the tests instead of creating new tests saved time.

The product could be more user-friendly. It's pretty easy when you know what to do, but it's not intuitive learning that all the features are available. For example, it’s not obvious that you can update a set of test cases with multi-select cut/paste. This was not available in its previous versions.
A lot of people also think all you get is what you see out-of-the-box. A lot of inexperienced users don’t know almost everything is configurable.

16 years.

No.

No.

I rarely needed any as I am an expert administrator.

Yes, spreadsheets. We switched because we grew from three people to 10 and needed a tool. ALM was one most of the team had used at other companies.

Complex. There are many steps to follow to set everything up for an upgrade, and if you make a mistake, it's catastrophic.

It is definitely overpriced. Most of the cost is for support that you rarely need if you have an onsite admin.

No.

It's better suited as an enterprise tool that can support the licensing cost, instead of for a small shop.