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."What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"It is stable and reliable."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"The performance could be faster."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"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."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"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 and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText Silk Central is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise.
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.
