We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"It is a stable solution."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"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 stability is very good."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"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."
"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."
"The performance could be faster."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Has good technical support services, but the migration process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and Parasoft Development Testing Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira and Tricentis qTest. See our Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
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.
