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, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."It has a good response time."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"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."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"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."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"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."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The performance could be faster."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"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."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"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 20th 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, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise, 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.
