Named versus concurrent user counting in ALM audits

ALM and Quality Center are licensed under two very different user models, named and concurrent, and a finding inflates when an audit applies the wrong one or counts both as though they stacked. The distinction between a named user and a concurrent user is the single most important thing to settle before any ALM count is accepted.

A named user license entitles a specific identified person to use the software. A concurrent user license entitles a number of simultaneous sessions, drawn from a larger pool of potential users, so an organization with a hundred occasional testers might run them all against a far smaller concurrent entitlement because only a handful are ever active at once. These are different units, priced differently and counted differently, and the audit risk in an ALM environment is that the broader or more expensive model is applied to a population it does not fit. Counting every provisioned account as a named user when the entitlement is concurrent, or measuring peak named headcount against a concurrent pool, produces a finding that the entitlements do not support. Because the EULA places compliance on the licensee, the buyer must establish which model governs which license, and that clarity is where the reduction begins.

How named and concurrent models differ

The named user model meters identity: each person who is entitled holds a license, whether they use the system daily or once a quarter. The concurrent model meters simultaneous use: the license caps how many sessions can run at the same time, and the total population of potential users can be much larger than the concurrent entitlement. The defensible position depends entirely on which model the entitlement specifies, because the count that is correct under one is wrong under the other. An audit that counts the full user population against a concurrent license, as though every account needed its own seat, overstates the requirement dramatically, since the concurrent model exists precisely to let a large population share a smaller number of simultaneous sessions. Conversely, concurrency data is irrelevant to a genuine named user license, and arguing it there wastes effort.

The principle is that the licensed unit is whatever the entitlement says it is, and the count must follow the model in the contract, not the model that produces the larger number. Matching the count to the correct model is the first and largest correction in many ALM findings.

Where the ALM user count overstates

Population counted against a concurrent pool

The clearest overcharge is counting every account as a seat when the license is concurrent. Concurrency evidence, peak simultaneous sessions over the period, is what corrects it, the discipline set out in how to challenge an ALM concurrent user headcount.

Inactive and departed accounts

Named user counts inflate with accounts that belong to people who have left or never used the system, removed with usage evidence as in reducing a LoadRunner finding with concurrency evidence and reconciled against the entitlement in reconciling ALM entitlements before an audit.

Quality Center definitions

Quality Center carries its own named user definitions and traps, which should be applied on their own terms rather than merged with ALM, as set out in Quality Center named user definitions and traps.

How we defend an ALM user finding under the four Rs

Respond. OpenText gives seven days notice before an audit and the right to copy relevant records. We take over the single controlled channel and ensure the user lists, the session and concurrency data, and the entitlement records are captured together, because the model argument needs all three.

Reconstruct. We build the effective license position by identifying which model governs each license and counting accordingly, measuring concurrency where the entitlement is concurrent and identity where it is named, before any vendor script runs.

Rebut. We challenge every line that applies the wrong model, counts a population against a concurrent pool, or stacks named and concurrent charges. The finding falls by the value of every seat the correct model does not require.

Resolve. We settle on the correctly modelled count and, where it serves you, convert forward into an OpenPass agreement that records how each ALM license is metered, so the next review does not reopen the named versus concurrent question.

An anonymised outcome

The reason the model question matters is the remedy behind the finding. On noncompliance the licensee is deemed to have acquired licenses at then current list price, owes back maintenance and support, owes first year maintenance on the new licenses, and reimburses the cost OpenText incurs performing the audit, so correcting the model can remove a large block of that charge at once. Our anonymised case files include reductions of comparable scale across the estate, an insurance ECM finding cut 78 percent, a technology Fortify finding cut 80 percent, a banking ArcSight finding cut 70 percent, and the ALM model correction works the same way: identify the right unit, and the seats the wrong model invented fall away.

Settle the model before the count

The lasting lesson is that in an ALM audit the user model is the first question, not a detail to be resolved later. A buyer who establishes which licenses are named and which are concurrent, then counts each against its own model with the supporting data, removes the largest single source of inflation before the line by line work begins. To prepare that position, read reconciling ALM entitlements before an audit, and to see the concurrency argument in detail, read how to challenge an ALM concurrent user headcount. For the full method see our ALM and LoadRunner audit defense track and our complete OpenText audit defense playbook for 2026. If an ALM finding has applied the wrong user model, open a case.

Reading the entitlement before counting anything

The model question is settled in the contract, not in the data, so the first step is always to read the entitlement carefully and record, for each license, whether it is named or concurrent and what that license defines the unit to be. Order forms and amendments sometimes change a model partway through a relationship, and a finding that applies a single model across all licenses can miss those distinctions entirely.

Once the models are established, the counting follows: concurrency data where the entitlement is concurrent, identity data where it is named, and never the two stacked together. Getting this right at the outset prevents the largest category of ALM overcharge and frames every later argument correctly. It is the same groundwork that supports defending an ALM named user overclaim line by line.