OpenText Application Quality Management Reviews

Quality assurance, requirement, and testing.

ALM helps focus on requirements, test, and the execution, track your defects, etc.

• Requirements
• Test
• Release process
• Defect tracking.

Release management and integration with other tools.

• Test management for multiple products
• Risk-based testing
• Requirements mapping
• Reporting.

• Reusable test cases
• Requirement traceability
• Reporting.

Test cycles.

Bridge to JIRA and Tableau.

We use it for manual and automatic testing along with defect and requirements management. We can check everything, know who is the sponsor for it, and make a test plan. Everything is very visible. 

ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach. We have also installed ALM Octane and are trying to see if it fills the approach that we are looking for our company.

It is very stable. We have not had any problems. 

I have a good impression of the scalability. I have been very satisfied. 

I used tech support once. It took a while to solve the issue, but it was solved.

Before, we used Excel for complex testings. Using this solution has been a huge step for us. From reporting to team management, everything is better now. 

We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us. 

I use 80 to 90 percent of the product's features. 

• It has a good response time.
• The AI and functionality interface are useful. 
• The task management reporting has a lot of out-of-the box uses.

Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution. 

Micro Focus ALM needs to bring the features of this ALM into the newer version of Octane. 

ALM can scale and is very impressive. It can support thousands of users with a very low amount of resources. It can easily manage very big projects within thousands of people at a time. It allows and disables scale, supporting front-end operations and task management at different levels. 

The initial setup is quite easy, if you know what you are doing. 

It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution.

My prior organization used the test execution and defect modules for QC. As a manager, I was able to set up reports that allowed me to finds areas of improvement for my team. We used the import functionality to import test cases for reusability and execution.

Prior to using Quality Center, my organization used spreadsheets and emails to track testing efforts. Therefore, QC helped my team become more efficient by tracking all testing activities with the tool.

I like the customizable report functionality. I was able to set up reports that allowed me to accurately give a real-time status all of all testing projects that were in process.

• I would love to see QC update and use metric dashboards at the individual and project level. 
• The UI also needs some updating with a fresh new look and feel.

We use this solution for model testing and as a central location for the test case responses and some test automation.

Central test locations are a benefit. The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed.

This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.

There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic.

They could also improve the usability.

I find the system very stable. There is very little downtime.

This solution is scalable. There is the ability to draw on the different platforms, especially with ALM Octane. However, I am more interested in the new hard platforms, so more of a container platform or solution. This is on their roadmap in the next three years, so at least there is a plan for it.

It is very good. We are located in Germany, and they have a service partner here. The fix given to us depends on the complexity of the problem, but usually we get answers within a day.

If someone is researching solutions, they should know that this solution is stable, centralized, and scalable. If they need integration, then this is the tool to use.

When selecting a vendor, some important criteria are availability, knowledge, price, and the site where they are getting the product. For example, if we have people doing a project as a team, then it is best if the solution can work in different languages, like German and English.

It is a complete AQM suite: single repository for tests, requirements, defects, etc. 

• It provides visibility on release status and readiness. 
• It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations.

• Test management
• Requirements management
• Defects

• Pure-FTPd WebUI
• Single sign-on

Our primary use case is for regression testing.

We use Micro Focus products together to improve organizational SLAs.

Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view.

The QA needs improvement.

Our current environment is ALM QC 12.53 and for performance testing ALM PC 12.53, Vugen 12.53, and UFT 14.

Micro Focus Quality Center helps in end-to-end traceability from releases to requirements to test cases and with defects. The enhanced dashboards capabilities are useful for senior management to view the progress of releases under the portfolio in one go and also drill down to the graphs.

The Project Templates and Enhanced Reporting features are the most useful. We have created domains as per the business units, and per business units, there is one template. It becomes easy to manage the template at business unit level. By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level.

• Easy integration with open source tools. 
• It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily. 

I feel that the licenses are expensive. 

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.