We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and OpenText Silk Central based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."The solution is very user-friendly."
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"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."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
"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."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"It is pricey."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"The QA needs improvement."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while OpenText Silk Central is ranked 21st in Test Management Tools. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while OpenText Silk Central is rated 7.8. 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 OpenText Silk Central writes "We have many possibilities to customize the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText Silk Central is most compared with .
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.
