OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

Customization is the most valuable feature. I don’t see other products with such a huge and detailed customization feature.

The Web UI and the Administration Page need to improve. These are not issues, but areas to improve.

Web UI: In some version (I don’t remember exactly the version number, unfortunately), Web UI was introduced with limited functionalities but it was cool in my opinion. Web UI has a lot of advantages and the main advantage is that the customer doesn’t have to install a big thick client on his machine. Web UI is faster, lightweight and easy to configure compared to the on-premise installation. But for some reason, this functionality (all Web UI) was removed in the next release.

Administration Page: It doesn’t have any issues. The main idea here is that it was written using old technologies and it would be great to improve/rewrite it using modern technologies. It doesn’t have an impact on the customer, it is more for developers who should support this area.

I have used this solution for five and a half years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is very good.

Previously, I have used Redmine and JIRA. Switching to HPE ALM was not my decision, I changed my job.

The setup was straightforward.

Just want to advise to use ALM SaaS in case you don’t want to use ALM all your life. It is cheaper and provides you with all the ALM features but for some period of time. Also, you don’t need to install it manually, the entire environment is already installed.

As an advise for developers who will develop such applications I would like to say - always try to support the area in an actual state, i.e., by using modern ideas/technologies if possible. Also, listen to the customer's needs, have flexible customization tools and do not forget about performance.

The most valuable feature is the Quality Center itself. It's a test management tool; so it enables us to manage and track tests, record the effects, and give us full traceability. It enables us to record what's happened and to have full traceability throughout the testing process.

It provides us with a central place for all our tests and all our test results.

The stability is very good.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support can be a bit hit and miss. Sometimes the support has been very good. At other times, the wait has been a bit long to get a response.

We were previously just recording all our test evidence in Word documents. So we needed a test center.

Make sure that you set it up correctly, and make sure you use the full range of tools in it. It will provide you with enough information for you to produce reports and get a full understanding from what you have done.

Our most important criteria when we choose a solution are reliability and scalability.

It's our main hub for everything around testing, especially when it comes to defect and department management.

It gives us a uniform way of working and reporting on defects as a project progresses. We've been using it for so long, it's become a standard part of our working protocols.

ALM bridges our development gap, but it's not quite full-scale yet. We'd like to see more functionalities so that we can use it to seamlessly helps us bring applications from development into production.

We never have issues with deployment.

I'd say it's stable 100% of the time. We never have outages.

I don't know if we're really a large scale user. We have around 230 users, and scalability has never been an issue. I think it's because we've been using it for so long that when we have an issue, we can solve it ourselves.

It depends on the case, but most of the time first-line support is okay, but in most cases we have to go to second-line support.

We work with many partners and contractors, and they always come in and say "we would like to use another tool." I always challenge them and say, "If you can give me clear advantages on paper of going with another tool, then I'll go." So far, no one's been able to convince me.

• Requirements
• Test Plan/Lab 
• Defects
• The sprinter is a great feature in the manual runner.
• Reporting
• Analysis
• Version Control
• Exporting and Importing
• Document Generator
• Defects Synchronization to other tools like Borland StarTeam and JIRA, for example

Accessibility! The reason I gave it a 9 not 10, is that I doesn’t support Apple machines or any browsers other than IE, and even then, later than IE 10! This is a big problem if the development team who should be working on defects are using Apple machines, which is very common. This is also a big problem for us if higher management wants to take a look on defects for one reason or the other. They are usually on the run and can’t access it using their iPads, for example.

This is a problem that JIRA solved, and it's now practically accessible from any browser on any type of operating system, and can be opened on a cellphone/tablet browser or through mobile applications. It’s perfect when it comes to accessibility and this is what Quality Center desperately needs.

I have been using it for more than six years.

Performance issues are very common. The degradation of performance and consequent failures continuously happen. “Failed to Login” errors are common as well, and some random issues like creating the issue twice and deleting one deletes the other, etc.

No issues encountered.

It's the perfect tool for testing purposes, but you need to consider other options if development teams do not use the environments supported by Quality Center.

• Test case creation
• Test case execution
• Base lining
• Requirements

It is useful in test-case maintenance as it helps with traceability.

I used it for two years.

Not that I am aware of.

The stability of the product is good.

No issues encountered.

I had little to no interaction with customer service.

It's good.

We figured out HP ALM is good and switched from using Excel spreadsheets.

It's straightforward. The user guide provides detailed steps on installation.

We used an in-house team to implement.

We also looked at MTM – Microsoft Test Manager.

If the company plans to use QTP/UFT then HP QC/ALM is a great option. UFT integrates with ALM and we can run test cases remotely.

The ability to show end-to-end tractability between requirements, tests, defects, and also reporting.

Allows us to have a single source of truth for our test efforts.

The reporting could be a little more robust.

I have used this version since June 2015. However, I have used this product since 1999, when it was Test Director 6.0.

Very infrequently.

Not so far, no.

A seven out of 10.

No. We have used Quality Center/ALM since I joined this organization.

A little complex as it pertains to migrating databases, then manually linking them back up to the file repositories.

In my current role, I don't advise anyone about pricing and licensing for this product.

This product was already in-house when I joined my company.

If you go the on-premise route, make sure your system architects and DBAs thoroughly review the installation/upgrade guide. I would also advise establishing a "center of excellence" department which can help build template projects and enforce standards so the users are all using similarly configured projects.

It gives me the ease of putting together the requirements, test cases, the release test schedules, and executing the test. It can generate the reports for each and every release that we need, and it's quick and easy enough to generate reports.

We have multiple teams across the globe where we have multiple projects set up in ALM. One project is used by our team in Israel and our other project is used by a team in Atlanta. We have a centralized control or multiple projects going across the globe. So that's a good benefit for us.

We actually use Performance Center, too. Where what we need is: When we run any test to the Performance Center, the results are stored in ALM, too. But what happens instead, the results show a summary report in HTML or a .zip file. But if there was a way in the test lab for ALM, after running any Performance Center test, that the the results could be published in the test lab itself instead of going and opening the particular result (if it shows all the response time and whatever transactional data that we have) in the ALM lab itself, that would be beneficial for us.

Also, on and off, we have had some issues with the operation itself where the operation is not able to run the test or something. We have to go back and forth with the vendor and HPE (now Micro Focus) to get this resolved.

For the last 10 years.

For ALM, we didn't have any specific downtime crashes, but we have had some issues with the database connection. The internal database where we put in the ALM data might crash or the database connection is lost. That's where we noticed some issues.

Whatever version of ALM that we have, it is more than enough for what we have right now. In terms of scaling, I can say it will go beyond four to five years from now.

For any of the operators, the support is extremely useful. It's great, actually. They are always available on-time.

It's straightforward to operate, but you actually need to get involved with the concerning vendors when you need their support.

We cannot just go download anything from online and put it. We need some support from the concerning team to make sure everything is right.

Defect Management, Test Management, MS Excel Reporting, Analysis Graphs.

Allowed us to centralize our test efforts from end to end so that we have a single source of truth for all of our test artifacts and data.

As an administrator, the ability to add users to their appropriate user groups from inside of the Site Administrator tool instead of having to log into the ALM project itself to make that user group assignment would be HUGE!

Since 1999 when the product was known as Test Director.

Just when folks forgot to check in their assets before migrating / upgrading existing projects.

Not so far, no.

Not so far, no.

Good.

Good.

Have been using a version of this solution since 1999. Have not used competing products day to day as of yet.

No.

In house.

I don't have exact figures, but we are saving time and money using this solution.