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 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."
"I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it."
"Inflectra SpiraTest has a lot of functionality, which is good."
"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."
"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."
"We were able to add a step-by-step procedure for someone to follow to assist in testing."
"It is stable and reliable."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"Defect management is very good."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"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."
"Two areas that can stand improvement: integration with third party products and making it more intuitive."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface is slightly complicated and not very consistent. It could be more user friendly."
"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."
"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."
"It is pricey."
"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."
"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."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"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."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Inflectra SpiraTest is ranked 17th 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.
