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."Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"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."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"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."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"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."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
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 5th 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, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. 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.