We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TestRail 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."Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"It has a good response time."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"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."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The product helps us create test cases and reports."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the UI. The structure of test cases is easy to understand."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"The ability to time test runs gives the tester the ability to compare calculated times to actual times it takes for a test case to run."
"Integration with Confluence and JIRA."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The integration with Jira and the ability for extra configurations are the most valuable features."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"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."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"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."
"TestRail's user interface is not great. When you use it for the first time, you will be very uncomfortable and not know how to create test cases. It doesn't have a field for preconditions and post-conditions."
"TestRail should improve its pricing."
"Their customer support could be improved. Sometimes we struggle with that. It could be faster. Whenever we raise any query, they get back to you but the turnaround time is very slow."
"Reporting could be more flexible regarding repeating reports."
"The platform needs improvement regarding performance and creating links."
"The reports should be more user-friendly."
"It's not easy to create a custom report. It's not straightforward. A good improvement would be if there was a way to report and create a custom report without using a plugin or scripting language."
"It would be useful if it had its own issue management system. At the moment, it's purely a test management tool and you have to link to a defect management tool, like JIRA. It would be useful if there was an option to use its own defect management tool so that it's integrated and not two separate tools."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews while TestRail is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while TestRail is rated 8.0. 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 TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Polarion ALM, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, TFS, Tricentis qTest, Tricentis Tosca and QMetry Test Management. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. TestRail 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.
