We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Original Software Qualify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The most valuable Quality Center feature, I find, is the solution's integration with some of our automation tools. For us, the ability to capture and record and the ease of use from a user perspective, are all key."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"Flexible software with multiple functions, e.g. scenario deployment, new entity creation, workflow creation, etc. Technical support for this software is very good."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"If the solution could create a lighter, more flexible tool with more adaptability to new methodologies such as agile, it would be great."
"The reporting engine of Original Software Qualify AQM needs to change. It's very difficult to develop complex reports. Its reporting function needs improvement."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Original Software Qualify is ranked 35th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Original Software Qualify is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Original Software Qualify writes "Flexible, multifunctional, and stable testing software with good technical support". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Original Software Qualify is most compared with .
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.