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."The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"It is a stable solution."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The stability is very good."
"Defect management is very good."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"The QA needs improvement."
"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."
"They should specify every protocol or process with labels or names."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
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 5th 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, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. 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.
