OpenText Application Quality Management Reviews

I use the solution in my company for test management. In our company, we were creating and mapping our requirements with the scenarios. The tool is used to map defects with test cases for the traceability part. My company has made use of the complete application.

The tool's most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly, and everybody can learn to use it easily.

Recently, I faced some issues while using the product on Mac-based machines, as I was unable to upload test cases. The aforementioned feature is not available with the tool. I asked the management to provide a Windows-based machine to upload different tests.

I have been using OpenText ALM / Quality Center for three to four years. I am a user of the tool.

It is a stable solution.

Our company's customers had multiple teams, of which some operated from remote sites or the offshore side. In general, there are around 30 people using the product.

I have not contacted the tool's support team. My company's support team members had contacted the tool's technical team to help deal with the product's issue with Mac-based machines.

I haven't done anything regarding the installation since our company's clients manage it.

My company has only installed the product on our client's local machine, which was easy since the support team members assisted us. Everything was clearly mentioned on the tool's website.

The solution is deployed on the client servers.

I feel that the product is a good test management tool. I feel that everyone needs to use the application.

The deficit management capability has impacted the productive quality, and I feel it is a good feature. My company has used the tool to map the test cases. My company can find out which test cases are impacted by defects.

The reporting and the analytics functionality that the solution provides to users to help them make informed decisions is one of the good parts of the product, especially since it helps create reports and dashboards easily.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center is an easy application to use. Anybody who has experience with IT processes and the development side can easily use the product.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution mainly for test cases, SAP projects, and login defects.

The solution's most valuable features are its bidirectional traceability, the solid structure within the test plan, and the test lab.

The solution's reporting could be improved. I noticed that the solution does not have a good approach to exploratory testing. Exploratory testing, which has a good screen capture and allows people to pursue their testing before designing the test cases, seems to be more in demand. The solution has evolved over the years but needs to catch up with some of the user community's expectations.

I have been using OpenText ALM / Quality Center for 16 years.

I rate the solution’s stability nine and a half out of ten.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I've used almost all the testing products, including Jira and IBM.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We have seen a return on investment with the solution. The tool has saved at least 30% to 40% of our time. The solution we used before OpenText ALM was very time-consuming, and it wasn't well structured. The traceability of OpenText ALM is very solid, and we have seen some significant gains in terms of our traceability.

The solution's pricing makes it more challenging for companies to buy it. Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM. Jira is free for the first ten users, which makes it more attractive for smaller businesses.

As a professional tester, the solution's best features are traceability, test coverage, identifying requirements, and mapping the appropriate test cases against the requirements to ensure coverage. The solution provides bidirectional traceability for requirements to test the defects. It is a solid way of tracking and managing the overall testing activities there.

The solution is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would advise users to take the time to understand the tool and work it through. It may seem a little complex at first, but the complexity is a result of the tool's capabilities and sophistication. Once you understand the tool quite well, it meets most, if not all, of your requirements.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for OpenText ALM is for automation use cases. We can map all the test cases with the requirements. The automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.

OpenText ALM helps my organization by allowing us to capture requirements and map them to the test cases, including automation test cases. 

It also allows us to schedule test runs and manage everything through ALM. It provides a good return on investment since the business can clearly see what is automated and what is not, as well as check the defects raised in ALM.

The most valuable features of OpenText ALM include its integration with the automation landscape, the ability to capture requirements and map them to test cases, and the capability to schedule runs through ALM. 

Features like BPT and the way they make it easier for end users to understand the split of test cases according to functionality are also valuable.

Costing is an area that needs improvement. It is a bit on the higher side and can be managed better as there are new players with better pricing. Aside from this, there are no other challenges and the solution is quite effective.

I have been using OpenText ALM as a customer for three years, and we are going to complete three years this December.

I rate the stability of the solution at a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very stable.

The solution is easy to scale.

I would rate tech support nine out of ten, indicating very good support.

Positive

The initial setup is easy since it is a SaaS-based solution.

There is a good return on investment. We can map all the test cases with the requirements, and the automation test cases allow the business to clearly see what is automated.

The cost is a bit high and this could be improved as there are new players with better pricing.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We used Quality Center for test case management. We wrote and uploaded test cases into it, and we also executed them manually. We could track the results of the test cases, and we could also track the defects that were found.

We also used it for higher-end requirements management and traceability. The managers and other stakeholders could track the requirements and see how they were being tested.

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.

Moreover, the solution has additional features, like integration with multiple tools. For example, they have integrated with IBM Rational Integration Tester, which is a tool for API testing and web service testing. They have also integrated with Selenium.

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

I have experience using this solution. 

I would rate stability an eight out of ten. The solution does crash at times. 

oI would rate the scalability a six out of ten. There is room for improvement here. 

The initial setup is quite easy. 

The deployment doesn't take much time. It is very fast.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. It is a pretty good tool. 

It's not a simple tool, but it does have a lot of features and considerations. It really depends on the level of the user. For example, some users will be working on the test execution, while senior levels will be tracking the requirement analysis. I work with both levels to track progress. So, it's a tool that can be used by people at all levels of experience.

We used Micro Focus ALM for the bifurcation process. We have different health associations registering on our portal. We import their data into our channels or segments created by us. So, whenever the users import the data, we require a medium to bifurcate it into different divisions. The solution helps us segment the data.

The most valuable feature is its customer service. They were very helpful. The initial phase of setting up Micro Focus ALM was challenging for us. It took us two or three weeks to set up. During this period, the support team devoted enough time to help us. They scheduled multiple meetings with us. Along with this, it was a straightforward program with all the functions we required from their end.

They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names. Whenever we tried to contact the support team, explaining the problems in our internal sections took a lot of work. While communicating the issues regarding channeling, we had to use very general terms. They needed to be more specific to identify which protocols were working fine and which were not. If they label the protocols better, communication will become much more manageable.

We were using the solution till last June or July. We used it for seven and a half months.

It was a stable solution, and it never crashed. I rate the solution's stability as a nine.

We had a team of 42 people using the solution. The solution is entirely scalable for small enterprises in the C2/C3 stage. I rate the solution's scalability of small enterprises as eight and a half. It might not be a helpful solution for large enterprises considering its cost.

We had to involve their support team whenever we had problems bifurcating data. The team was always there to help.

Positive

Micro Focus ALM is better than IBM or other solutions I have worked with.

The initial setup was easy since the support team was with us. They were always there to support us. Initially, the accuracy rate was meager when we deployed it ourselves. It was doing the wrong bifurcation at times. Thus, improving the accuracy rate took us two to three weeks.

The installation is more of a process than exclusively parting it into stages. In the first stage, we had to configure the setup according to our needs. In the second stage, we had to import our data into it, and the third one was to bifurcate it and make a training model. We used our model before sending and receiving the data directly for confidentiality.

I rate the solution's initial setup as a nine.

We implemented the solution by ourselves. We indigenously built a model for integration. We were a team of seven and an executive, meaning eight members were involved. The team included software developers and product managers.

The ROI is worth it.

It was expensive for us. For the first two weeks, we had to employ people now and then as the system needed to be more accurate. It cost us a lot of money. I rate the solution's pricing as a seven or an eight out of ten.

Our team was able to do a part of the maintenance, and we required the support cell's help with some of the features. The support team is excellent and helpful. 

I recommend Micro Focus ALM if you're looking for a solution that can help you for a small duration in the C2 or C3 stage when you want to grow. But it is wise to avoid hanging around with it for long. The solution is a bit costly, but simultaneously, it is cost-friendly for the organization for a reasonable accuracy rate, preferably above 99%.

I rate the Micro Focus ALM as an eight out of ten.

We are using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to test the software from the company. Additionally, we do manual and automated tests.

The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult.

In a future release, the AI which is implemented in the new version could be marketed better with more details of its capabilities.

I have been using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for approximately 15 years.

The stability of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is good.

We have a few hundred people using the solution from project to project.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a scalable solution.

I have contacted the support a few times over the years of using the solution. The support could improve by having more training. I had a difficult time working with their team. The problem the support had was they were not familiar with the things I implemented and the connectors used.

We were using Tricentis and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to compare which one was better. However, we deployed Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a lot more and at this point, it would be difficult to migrate to a new solution. This is one of the main reasons why we use this solution. However, as a company, we wanted to use the best solution and at this time there is still a debate.

The initial setup of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center depends if you have prior knowledge or how much technical experience the installer has. It is simple if you have some experience. The process is not meant for a non-technical person, such as setting up the infrastructure to build the servers.

The solution is priced high but it is worth the money. We received a return on investment.

The solution is priced high.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is one of the best tools on the market.

I strongly recommend using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to capitalize on the work that is done within the tool for future activities, such as regression testing and training. Unlike working with Excel or Word documents, the work you do in this tool remains accessible and secure, with the option for backups. It's no surprise that many business professionals are using this tool, as it provides a reliable and efficient platform to work on. With a small amount of training and induction in key areas like the test lab and defects module, anyone can work effectively within this tool.

I rate Micro Focus ALM Quality Center a nine out of ten.

We primarily use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, including test case creation and execution, and we also use it for planning different test cycles during regression tests. We handpick the cases, plan different test cycles, and use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for defect creation.

What I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the ease of use, especially compared to Micro Focus ALM Octane, that's more difficult because it doesn't have clear-cut options.

For example, in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel. There was a template provided, so you can write on the template and upload it, which means you can quickly write and upload many cases at once, so that's the main advantage of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center.

Planning regression cycles on the tool was also easier because you could mark regression cases and handpick your planned cases for execution rather than pulling every case, which was more difficult.

An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. I don't experience issues when writing and uploading new cases on the sheet. Still, whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or some cases are missing from the sheet. Micro Focus needs to improve on that aspect.

What I'd like to see in the next Micro Focus ALM Quality Center release is more report formats, for example, a graphical reporting format. Right now, you'll find just one or two formats available in the tool for reporting.

Report preparation and generation should also be easier because I have to put in each parameter, and if I miss one parameter, the report will look weird. Pulling in parameters should be simplified and quicker, and it should be easier to generate reports on Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Reporting in the tool should be more user-friendly. At least for day-to-day or regular weekly reporting.

At the end of the project, if you want a more sophisticated report, the tool should have a reporting option that looks more high-level and similar to what data warehouse and BI solutions provide. You can integrate Micro Focus ALM Quality Center with BI or data warehouse tools to get that kind of reporting, but it would be great if you could do it on the tool itself without needing to integrate it with other tools.

I want Micro Focus ALM Quality Center to have a report that shows data analytics, how many test cases I executed for a specific period, the percentage of tests that passed or failed, etc. There should be data available for extraction from year to year, from an overall project perspective, rather than just day-to-day or week-to-week.

I started using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center in 2017, so I've used it for five years. I'm still using the solution.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is pretty stable, so it's an eight out of ten for me. I've been using it for the last five years, and it's stable.

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a scalable product. It's a seven out of ten for me.

Most of the time, the technical support for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center was excellent. I only recalled a few times when it wasn't so great. I'd rate support as seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up Micro Focus ALM Quality Center was easy, so I'd rate it as eight.

In my project, I'm using Micro Focus ALM Quality Center version 12.5, but I'm checking if I can use Micro Focus ALM Octane because I have a trial version.

My rating for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is eight out of ten.

We've primarily used most of the solution. Our requirements included test cases and defect handling in the past. We are using it for regression testing and maintenance of test cases to do regression testing when we are upgrading the system.

The solution acts as a repository of all of our test cases, which is very useful. We don't normally check the history as the environment has changed since the last time we ran a test. We know that we've executed the test and therefore don't need to repeat it. We understand what kinds of issues have occurred for future reference. 

It is stable and reliable.

The solution can scale.

Between versions 12 or 13 and the upgrade to 15, it took a very long time. We had a lot of difficulties with support and didn't understand why we had so many upgrade issues. 

We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product. 

It might be end of life in some ways. 

The pricing can be a bit expensive. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. We haven't had any issues aside from the upgrade problems we've run into. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have not had a problem adding users to help perform testing. In that sense, it is scalable. We haven't done too much development around test cases, however.

Right now, we have 20 to 25 people using the solution. Years ago, 30 or 40 people were using it. We've actually lowered usage. 

Support wasn't too helpful when we had to do an upgrade. The website is complex, and it's difficult to get answers. You can look online, and that ends up being more efficient than actually trying to find answers is Micros Focus. 

We had issues finding support.

Neutral

It's not a big deal to upgrade the version we have. We've had issues in the past, however. We've had problems with user handling and would like to incorporate it with Windows Director or SSO functionality. That's available in later versions, and we haven't upgraded to that yet.

We started with an empty ALM originally and filled it with content. It's been a long, historic journey from implementation to upgrades. 

I am not aware of the exact pricing of the solution. Many years ago, it was quite expensive, and my understanding is it is still not a low price. There are free tools on the market now as well, and therefore the price may be an issue. 

We are an end-user.

I might be using version 15 at this time. We've done a test installation of version 17.

When we started the test automization, it was not like today. It's gotten better over time. Now, it's much easier to automate testing. While I could recommend the solution, it's not necessarily state-of-the-art, however. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Although it is not state-of-the-art, it is still a good tool.