OpenText Application Quality Management Reviews

We provide support for customers, which require this kind of solution.

The setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution can scale.

I frankly don't recommend Micro Focus solutions. 

The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent. I even opened the issue to the partner. With the support not being great, we faced some stressful situations with the customer. That's why I'm looking for another partner.

I'd like to see more artificial intelligence and machine learning features implemented in future releases.

I've been using the solution for almost a year.

I realized there are some bugs in the solution that were not occurring on the last solution. 

Micro Focus bought another company. Since then, my experience hasn't been that great. The quality has dropped. It's not as stable as it used to be. I was expecting it to be more stable.

For the Quality Center, the scalability is quite good. On Load Runner, as a comparison, I faced one issue related to scalability. We face quite a few problems in that area.

The companies that are using Quality Center are quite sizeable. We have around 20 users on that particular solution.

The technical support is not helpful. They aren't responsive or knowledgable and they don't take initiative to solve issues for clients. It can hurt the relationship we have with our clients. We're not satisfied with their level of service.

While the setup is straightforward in general, the configuration is not quite as user-friendly. To configure the solution, you need to have many years of experience with the solution. Those that are new to it may face issues.

In terms of deployment, it takes about three days for the Quality Center installation as a whole. In contrast, Load Runner takes about two days in our case. 

We're a Micro Focus partner.

I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using. We are configuring the company and we tend to use the latest version of labels.

We work with both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I don't recommend Micro Focus tools. It's a very strong company nowadays, however, I'm trying to find another partner. For instance, I've researched solutions that are much better than Micro-Focus in SAP scenarios.

I'd advise users looking for a solution to pay attention to their requirements and make sure whichever solution they choose meets them. You'll need to do a lot of research and balance the pros and cons of each option before choosing anything.

Overall, I would rate the solution six out of ten.

Consolidate the testing process, centralised reporting, ease of analytics on metrics, easier bug management, consistent flow of requirements, flow of test cases, reusable test cases, testing history, bugs.

It has improved our organization as a result of several factors: All test assets are in one central location; Easier to track progress of QA activities; Easier reporting; Easier to assess quality

Requirements Management, Test Plan, Test Lab, Defect Management, Sprinter, Access control, Versioning and audit.

The project tracking is a bit complex. It takes some time to maneuver around it. It would also help if you could export some of the reports generated from it e.g. the Master Plan.

More than five years.

No

Can be used for really large organisations, multiple test projects

Customer Service:

Very responsive, though we haven't needed a lot of support.

Technical Support:

Technical Support has been helpful.

Initial setup was straightforward.

Vendor. The team was very qualified, both technically and from a user perspective.

We haven't yet computed the ROI.

Original cost was $158,000. Our day-to-day cost is difficult to compute, but it’s very low.

Yes, IBM - CLM.

It’s a great product for managing an end-to-end lifecycle process. It’s easy to use once you get the hang of it. One of the biggest pluses is having all your test assets in one place – requirements, models, test cases, test results, bugs, reporting, tracking (it’s unbeatable in my opinion).

It's also great that HP has now lowered the Saas cost for ALM - it was too high in my view.

We use this solution for an Avionic System to test for integration and verification with real and simulated hardware.

By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation.

The automated document generation provides the ability to perform tests within one day of our flight test readiness reviews. In the past, the timespan was several weeks.

We would like to have support for agile development. As we do not have this capability, we are now investigating the use of Octane.

• Test management
• Defect management, and 
• Test case storage.

Good test management tool.

Defect tracking.

Licensing model is awful.

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.