We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and PractiTest 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."You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"It is not a scalable solution."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"It is pricey."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 21st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. 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 PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Jira, Zephyr Enterprise and Microsoft Azure DevOps. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. PractiTest report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Test Management Tools 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.