We performed a comparison between Inflectra SpiraTest and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The features of this product most valuable to me were the test case management and the visual status, by which it was displayed."
"The reporting functionality helps vendors and technical resources identify bugs and issues that need to be addressed. The simple dashboard-style home page makes training end-user testers simple and straightforward. The actual testing UI is VERY straightforward and very intuitive for the end-users that test the system since very often we pull from business and operational users to help test new systems."
"I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it."
"The user-friendly features are the most valuable. For example, migration of requirements and migration of test cases and the creation of traceability. You have various reports that you need. The plug-ins that are available to connect with the other tools."
"Inflectra SpiraTest has a lot of functionality, which is good."
"We were able to add a step-by-step procedure for someone to follow to assist in testing."
"The ability to reuse test cases already used across projects is the most valuable feature of this solution. We don't need to create new ones."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"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."
"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 UI for managing test cases, test sets, test runs could be a little more integrated, currently, these feel disjointed at times and confusing. Also, the test steps page needs to display the test steps closer to the top of the UI so as to not have to scroll down to find."
"Two areas that can stand improvement: integration with third party products and making it more intuitive."
"Being able to add scripting for testing can and does save a lot of time. When you are able to just ‘run’ a test case rather than manually add it and run it."
"It should develop integration with JIRA. We have some complexities which caused us not to decide to integrate it with our JIRA, like synchronous data."
"Migrating is not very easy. It depends on the organization, how efficient and effective the decision-making process is. The plug-ins should be easier and more integrated rather than the user trying to integrate the tools which are more popular, like Jira et al."
"The folder organization in Inflectra SpiraTest could be better, though I cannot comment whether that is structure-related. Most of what I need would probably be in the tool, but as a test manager, I need to be able to create dashboards and reports easily."
"The user interface is slightly complicated and not very consistent. It could be more user friendly."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"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 →
Inflectra SpiraTest is ranked 15th in Test Management Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. Inflectra SpiraTest is rated 7.4, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Inflectra SpiraTest writes "Intuitive enough and easy to learn, but in terms of folder organization, it could be better". 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 ". Inflectra SpiraTest is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS and Jama Connect, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our Inflectra SpiraTest vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
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.
