We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TestRail 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."Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"It has a good response time."
"Defect management is very good."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"I use the solution for test management."
"I was on the lookout for automation testing on the browser and I believe this tool is very interesting in that matter. The solution is useful for UI testing. You just need to add the URL that is to be checked."
"Integration with Confluence and JIRA."
"The most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"The product helps us create test cases and reports."
"I use the product to create test cases and share them with my team and manager."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"The API to support integration of the homemade automated testing tool."
"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."
"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."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"The performance could be faster."
"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."
"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."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"It would be useful if it had its own issue management system. At the moment, it's purely a test management tool and you have to link to a defect management tool, like JIRA. It would be useful if there was an option to use its own defect management tool so that it's integrated and not two separate tools."
"The test suite management has room for improvement as well as better reporting."
"The platform needs improvement regarding performance and creating links."
"I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT. Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited. The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application."
"There are a number of improvements that have been requested. While I don't have a list of these requests available, many can be found on Gurock's forum."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"I've encountered at some point, some difficulties on the administration side, but I don't remember exactly what they were."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while TestRail is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while TestRail is rated 8.0. 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 TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest, TFS, Tricentis Tosca and QMetry Test Management. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TestRail 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.