OpenText Application Quality Management Reviews

• Requirements module
• Test Plan/Case module
• Defect module
• Reporting modules
• API

• Real-time snapshot of project vitals
• Reusability of requirements
• Tests
• Flexibility in assigning multiple testers to a project, rather than assigning each tester to a test case
• Seamless on the fly reorganise test projects due to corporate emergencies and shifting priorities

• Traceability and version control management
• Not able to group project deliverables by builds

I've used it for six years.

When we were installing v10, the installation became corrupted. So when we upgraded to v11, it was very expensive, and at our own cost, to do. This was regardless of our maintenance contract with HP.

No issues encountered.

Our vendor is 10/10, but HP is 7/10.

Our vendor is 10/10, but HP is 8/10.

No previous solution was used.

The installation tools are not the best, even for experienced IT/admin, it self-corrupts, and there is no good tech support to help with install issues unless you pay them to fly in a team.

We did it in-house.

It's 300%.

It depends on your vendor. SkyIt was the best, as they were able to get the initial cost low enough so a small startup could afford it.

• IBM
• JIRA/Test Link

For small companies where audits/lawsuits etc. are not a factor, it's not worth the investment. You should use open source or lower cost alternatives (JIRA project/defect tracking, Test Link open source QC like Test Tool). However, for any company that wants a mature, highly developed platform that is constantly improving, need to survive audits, etc., you must consider HP ALM solutions such as HP 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 keep test cases and defects centrally located, accessible to multiple people instead of in document format, is the most valuable feature.

We no longer need to use documents for test cases, which are brittle and difficult to keep updated.

• The UI is primitive
• The tool is hard to learn
• The help files are minimal, even the videos
• The massive configuration options are too broad, meaning there is little in common across deployments

I've used it for a few months, but I also have experience with Quality Center, the predecessor.

I wasn't involved in the deployment.

The site has to be reloaded every time there is a change in the background.

No issues encountered.

It was complex, as I was not given permission to delete items, for example. Trying to create test cases via copy-and-paste can be cumbersome, and it was easy to misread the directory structure or put cases in the wrong location.

I believe that the tool is probably not worth great expense, although it is better than remaining tied to documents and spreadsheets.

Try MS Test Manager first, particularly if your code is .Net and/or your developers use Visual Studio.

• Being a large SAP shop, having the ability to track individual issues to a defined release is a key function.
• We also use the tool for our performance testing and automation efforts, including the test library repository. These functions within the tool are easy to use and allow our internal user community simplicity in the needed access to these.
• Scalability is a must with our business and this tool has it.

It has a very large footprint, and takes an inordinate amount of time to load the components and seems to need to do this quite frequently. Also, with many of these tools, there is always room for improvement with the UI in terms of intuitiveness and functionality.

I've used it for five years.

Just the amount of time to install as well as the reinstall frequency.

No issues encountered.

No. Scalability is another key reason for using this tool as mentioned above.

As with any big company, HP support is good but costly.

I have not had to deal with them.

We really started using ALM about five years ago when our testing automation efforts kicked into high gear. Up until then, we were tracking testing using various other smaller tools.

Setup was straightforward once the needed hardware was defined and in place.

It was done in-house.

We have other tools with HP, so it's bundled in with these and hard to measure ROI specifically for one tool.

You need to negotiate with HP.

It's a great tool for a company looking to establish a scalable solution that will give you flexibility as you grow, BUT I would highly suggest you have individual(s) with the expertise to care for and feed it.

• Test Plan
• Test Lab
• Defects
• Requirements
• Dashboard - Reports

• Improved the work quality
• Centralized location for the testing life-cycle
• Traceability and visibility to all the members and stakeholders of projects
• Standardization of test cases
• Test case execution and validation
• Ease of integration with automation tools like QTP, LoadRunner, SOATest etc.

The performance of this product is really poor, and there is no dashboard (reports) for the groups or users on the home page. Also, instead of one database, there are separate ones for each project.

I've used it for three years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

If you add any custom workflow (scripting), then in the long run there will be a deviation in application performance.

It's excellent.

It's excellent, but they don't support scripting unless it's in your PO.

We used JIRA. Its is also a good tool for defect tracking, but due to the lack of test and requirements management in JIRA, we have moved to ALM.

Straightforward. I've gone through the installation admin, and followed the same steps and it was fine.

We did it in-house.

It's a bit costlier when compared to other tools on the market, and you have to haggle with HP for this product.

We also looked at TFS.

Its a good tool for a perfect software development company where release/project roll outs happen on a planned basis. It's not a supportive tool for an agile environment.

The most useful are the requirements repository, the ability to link requirements to test script steps, and the use of traceability matrix reporting.

Houses requirements and testing with approvals all in one place. Signature approval capability was very useful.

It could be better by incorporating more spell checking and word processing functionalities in steps. Also, it could be more user friendly to "call" other scripts.

I have used the latest version of ALM for about four years, but I have used all previous versions going back to 2001 through to today.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Mostly with the blocking of users when the license limit was reached.

It's 5/10 as our own resources were more useful at solving issues.

It's 5/10 - our own resources were more useful at solving issues due to time constraints with responses.

We did not have a previous solution. This was our first solution.

Make sure it is easy to use for your roles. If you have technical people, other solutions may be better (like resources with VB expertise, etc.). Make sure you implement it as organized by system functionality, not by project.

My current company is just starting to use it, and they keep copying test plans for each project instead of reusing original test plans, which is a waste of time and resources.

• 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.

It's excellent.

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.

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.

• Reporting
• Dashboard
• Traceability
• Application Lifecycle Management

The tool has increased the collaboration between different teams.

Some improvement to the Requirements Management are needed.

I've used it for five years along with HP Quality Center Enterprise Edition v10.

No issues encountered.

No, it's a very stable product.

No issues encountered.

8//10.

7/10.

We switched because the previous solution was lacking features to manage a complete life-cycle.

Very simple setup.

We used a vendor who were 10/10.

11 months.

Varies.

For us this was the complete choice.

Use iy out of the box and utilize built in features.

The integration with MS Excel, test suite upload feature, Document builder and the test run process.

Helps in providing an archive of test suites for easy regression.

Also helps to keep track of the time spent on test executions, and defect management.

Two years plus.

The Client was needed in our network environment because the Web GUI was found to be unstable.

The client crashes every so often, but only when left idle for a while.

Majority of the tests done by my company are manual so QC serves majorly as a depository for our client.