can anyone tell me wether it was good, bad or indifferent?
Weapon performance remains a sensitive topic even after withdrawal from service so you won’t (or at least, shouldn’t) get much of an answer on here, certainly on trial data. What I will say is that assessing its effectiveness on live operations was very difficult: as a long-ranged and quite slow-acting missile it did its business well out of sight, and no-one wanted to hang around near air defence systems to see what it was up to. If no-one got shot down while an ALARM was in the air, was that because it scared the SAM operators into turning their radars off, or destroyed the radar, or simply because no-one would have been shot down anyway? A great imponderable. HARM was/is different in that regard because it did/does its business quickly (the clue is in the name...) and so is perhaps easier to correlate a shot with an outcome. Enough said I feel.