OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText ALM Octane comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Sep 5, 2022

We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Octane and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.

  • Ease of Deployment: Most users of both solutions say that their initial setup is straightforward, but a small percentage disagree and say that the setup is complex.

  • Features: Users of both products are satisfied with their scalability and stability.

    Octane reviewers like its agile support, reporting, and defect management features and say it is fast and user friendly but they would like more flexibility when configuring filters.

    Quality Center reviewers say it provides them with good test management tools and analytics but lacks automation and agile support.

  • Pricing: Octane reviewers feel that its price is fair. In contrast, most Quality Center reviewers feel that it is an expensive product.

  • ROI: Reviewers of both solutions report seeing an ROI.

  • Service and Support: Most reviewers of both solutions report being satisfied with the level of support they receive.

Comparison Results: Micro Focus ALM Octane ultimately won out in this comparison. According to reviews, Octane appears to be a more comprehensive and high performing solution.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText ALM Octane Report (Updated: March 2024).
763,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Its end-to-end traceability is one of the big advantages. Most of our agile projects work in a closed team structure. We are seeing what is the flow, where we are, and what is the project milestone. So, it provides end-to-end traceability and good visibility of project milestones.""With an Octane project, we have our automation, our requirements, our tests, our pipeline into build-and-deploy, and the ability to identify problem areas. It makes things quicker because it's more along the lines of an automated process.""Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center.""The key feature is the usability. It is fast to learn and easy to use. It's very intuitive to work with. Most of the important functions are available via a few clicks, compared to other tools where I have to open a sub-menu and then a sub-menu and another sub-menu, and then press a button.""The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the reports. We are able to do customization.""It's more streamlined because we have it all under one umbrella. And once the business requirements and rules have been created, we can do test cases and apply them to the business rules.""On the user side, what I like a lot is the reporting capabilities. There's no tool, to my knowledge, that gets anywhere close to Octane at the moment when it comes to the reporting capabilities. I can do everything with the reporting. There's nothing missing. I have all the options. I can create graphs, including graphs of several types and looks.""The most useful feature of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the dashboards, they are easy to use."

More OpenText ALM Octane Pros →

"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application.""This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.""It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process.""It has a good response time.""By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level.""ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product.""Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects.""The setup is pretty straightforward."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pros →

Cons
"The limitation of Octane is that we can't do a release outside of the sprint. We can only plan the release in the sprint. With Agile and JIRA tools, we can plan the release outside the sprint and do a global release of all the projects from the sprint.""We’d like to see Platform One/Iron Bank compliant containers.""The solution should improve by adding scrum board-like functionality.""Also, while there is a Requirements Module in Octane, it is very plain. It's okay to have some requirements described there, but it's not really following the whole BDD approach. I would like to have more features for requirements in there.""There's a trend in our requests to have the ability to export data, en masse, out of Octane. There are capabilities within Octane to export data, but there are specifics around test suites and requirements and relations, as well as certain attributes, that we would like to be able to export easily out of Octane and into a database or Excel.""The product's requirements management feature needs enhancement in terms of functionality.""Because JIRA is a leading tool for both development and requirements management - everybody is using JIRA - I'm pretty there will be a use case where people are trying to connect between ALM Octane and JIRA. The back-end configuration of the synchronization with JIRA could be simplified. The architecture is really complicated. We required a lot of machines to build the cluster and the configuration was not really clearly described within the documentation. This may have something to do with the fact that the software is pretty new.""Globally, I don't see many major points of improvement. It's mostly plenty of little things, and it's weird to me that they are not in the product yet. They are really details, but they're annoying details... Today, in the tool, we've got plenty of assets we can handle, like requirements, user storage, defects, tasks and so on. And to all of those elements, we can add comments. We can add comments to any asset in Octane but not to tasks. It's just impossible to understand why it's not available for the tasks because it's available everywhere else. Similarly, for attachments, you can attach files absolutely everywhere except on automated runs, which is, again, awkward. I don't understand why on this element, in particular, you cannot do it. It's little touches like that."

More OpenText ALM Octane Cons →

"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.""Is not very user-friendly.""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 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 is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution.""Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in.""We have had a poor experience with customer service and support.""ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."

More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Pricing is the weakest point. It is expensive, but the tool has plenty of features. The main problem we have is that the pricing is very high compared to some other solutions."
  • "It will be as expensive as ALM.NET, if not more expensive. But here's a good tip: If you have ALM.NET, you are able to share your licenses from ALM.NET to Octane. You just have to define a dedicated number of licenses on ALM.NET and then you can share them with ALM Octane, with some configuration effort. This is something that you have to take into account, that there is a possibility of such license sharing that could decrease your costs. Compared to open-source tools, the price the ALM Octane is definitely higher, in terms of the licensing cost."
  • "It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time."
  • "It's expensive. HPE products, and now Micro Focus, have always been expensive. The license is not cheap, and it will always be a challenge, particularly for small organizations like ours."
  • "For what it does, it's very reasonably priced. I like the licensing model as well, because it's very flexible. You can scale licenses up and down for short periods of time."
  • "In terms of pricing, it's comparable to what we had previously. It's not priced at the higher end of the scale by any means. It's priced nicely, in the middle of the market. For what you're getting, it's a very good tool."
  • "Going forward, I think we will want to explore adding more licenses."
  • "The solution has reduced our testing costs."
  • More OpenText ALM Octane Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."
  • "If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
  • "For pricing, I recommend to buy a bundled package. Check the HPE site for more details."
  • "The full ALM license lets you use the requirements tab, along with test automation and the Performance Center. You can also just buy the Quality Center edition (Manual testing only), or the Performance Center version (Performance Testing only)."
  • "HPE has one of the most rigid, inflexible, and super expensive license models."
  • "Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."
  • "Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
  • "I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
  • More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
    763,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Netanya Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the… more »
    Top Answer:The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
    Top Answer:The product is highly priced compared to other tools. However, it offers substantial value. There is a distinction between OEM pricing and the final pricing for customers. They could understand the… more »
    Top Answer:HP ALM and Jira can be easily integrated with the aid of a third-party Integration Solution To help you select the right integration approach and tool, you should first define your integration… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
    Top Answer:It was expensive for us. For the first two weeks, we had to employ people now and then as the system needed to be more accurate. It cost us a lot of money. I rate the solution's pricing as a seven or… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    8,305
    Comparisons
    4,255
    Reviews
    13
    Average Words per Review
    559
    Rating
    8.2
    Views
    9,202
    Comparisons
    3,969
    Reviews
    17
    Average Words per Review
    424
    Rating
    7.4
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
    Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
    Learn More
    Overview

    OpenText ALM Octane helps organizations implement a “quality everywhere” approach and improve Agile and DevOps development and testing processes to improve the flow of work across the software delivery value stream. You can tightly align quality efforts from development to release, employ a broad range of tests anchored by automation, and continuously monitor and improve for increased throughput. OpenText fosters an open approach so that quality is visible, traceable, and continuously improved. By synchronizing quality and testing with Agile and DevOps processes, risks are mitigated early in the software delivery value stream – speeding the way for faster delivery and improved customer satisfaction.

    ALM Octane facilitates a tailored and scalable approach for large enterprises. You can deploy your way and minimize infrastructure needs with deployment options spanning on-premises, SaaS, and public cloud (Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure Marketplaces). Similarly, various licensing options can tailor the features to meet specific needs with support for thousands of concurrent users in geographically disperse locations.

    OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.
    Sample Customers
    Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
    Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider27%
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Transportation Company19%
    Consumer Goods Company4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government9%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Insurance Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization53%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Computer Software Company6%
    Manufacturing Company5%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise3%
    Large Enterprise79%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise8%
    Large Enterprise79%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business7%
    Midsize Enterprise56%
    Large Enterprise37%
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText ALM Octane
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText ALM Octane and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    763,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 13 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews. OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM Octane writes "A stable solution used for test management that is perceived to be an outdated tool by its customers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "It is a stable solution, and customer service is its most valuable feature". OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Rally Software, GitLab and Codebeamer, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. OpenText ALM Octane 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.