We performed a comparison between Helix ALM and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool offers high stability."
"The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility."
"Helix ALM enables users to build, make efficient and effective decisions, and use least-cost methods for maximum benefit, as fast as possible. They allow you to see and visualize your configuration."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"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 is very good."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"It would be great to see Perforce's strategy is for implementing intelligence into the process via AI or ML. It's not clearly defined, at least not to my knowledge."
"Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it."
"The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"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."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Helix ALM is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 7 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. Helix ALM is rated 6.4, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Helix ALM writes "Helix ALM is insanely configurable, with great traceability, and flexibility". 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 ". Helix ALM is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, Polarion Requirements and TestRail, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our Helix ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
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.