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."One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"It is a stable solution."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"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."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
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 6th 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 and Tricentis qTest. 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.
