GoCD vs OpenText ALM Octane comparison

Thoughtworks and OpenText are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Thoughtworks is ranked #15 with an average rating of 7.5, while OpenText is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0. Thoughtworks holds a 0.2% mindshare in ALM, compared to OpenText’s 6.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Thoughtworks users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

GoCD

Read 7 GoCD reviews

128 Views
93 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText ALM Octane

Read 41 OpenText ALM Octane reviews

4,594 Views
2,508 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

GoCD

OpenText ALM Octane

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

GoCD and OpenText ALM Octane are competing products in the software development and testing domain. OpenText ALM Octane is often considered superior due to its advanced features and integration, despite its higher cost.

Features: GoCD emphasizes continuous delivery workflows, configuration as code, and pipeline modeling, ensuring a straightforward setup with a focus on simplicity. OpenText ALM Octane offers robust project and portfolio management, advanced testing capabilities, and integration with a broad ecosystem, focusing on agile project management and end-to-end test coverage.

Room for Improvement: GoCD could expand its plugin architecture for greater extensibility, improve LDAP integration, and enhance its permission separation features. OpenText ALM Octane might benefit from simplifying its user interface further, reducing complexity for smaller teams, and streamlining some customization options to avoid unnecessary technical overhead.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GoCD provides an easy deployment option for smaller teams with effective customer service but fewer comprehensive support features. OpenText ALM Octane caters to enterprise-scale needs with a more complex deployment process but offers extensive customer service and tailored support.

Pricing and ROI: GoCD presents a cost-effective option with a good ROI for smaller organizations due to its low setup cost. OpenText ALM Octane involves a higher initial investment, justified by its comprehensive features and integration capabilities, providing value for larger enterprises prioritizing extensive features.

To learn more, read our detailed GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

GoCD

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Build Automation (15th), Release Automation (8th)

OpenText ALM Octane

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

8th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of GoCD is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM Octane is 6.2%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

RajeshReddy

Dev Ops Engineer at Infosys

The UI is colorful, but the user experience must be improved

We can see all the pipelines with a simple search. The UI is colorful. The user experience is very rich. The product is very easy to learn if we know a bit of the basics. If we have someone to show us how to use it, it is very easy.

Read full review

GeorgNauerz

Managing Partner at Georg Nauerz Consulting

Makes team collaboration between IT and non-IT users easier with more transparency

The user experience is a lot better than any tool that I have used before. Overall, it is great. It has a smooth interface, which is very user-friendly. It makes it easier to work together and have more transparency and customization, which is very good. There are a lot of features where you can add fields, input individual fields, and input rules, like templated rule-based interaction between entities. The Backlog management is really interesting, because it is all in one place. You don't have a feature here and a feature there, instead you have the Backlog and testing using different backup items, like user storage features and tasks, all in one place. In addition, we are able to write documents, which we can transfer to backup items. Then, we can test them in the same solution without switching tools, or even switching from one part of the tool to another part, because it is all in one place. We use the solution’s Backlog and Team Backlog capabilities. They make our DevOps processes easier through transparency and asset collaboration.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most notable aspect is its user interface, which we find to be user-friendly and straightforward for deploying and comprehending pipelines. We have the ability to create multiple pipelines, and in addition to that, the resource consumption is impressive."

"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."

"GoCD's open-source nature is valuable."

"The UI is colorful."

"We looked at all the market-leading tools, but we did not find anything quite as comprehensive as ALM Octane. When I say comprehensive, it's not just a single tool for Agile planning, backlog management release, sprint planning, etc., but it also has a built-in, comprehensive quality management module. It also has pipelines where we can hook up with our DevOps ecosystem/toolchain."

"Current version of the solution is fairly stable."

"It is a very scalable solution."

"There are a lot of predefined reports. We can attach additional reports for users, like who worked on what defect and when, as well as what is the status of the release compared to the previous release. It is really endless. All the data is really linked together. Then, if all the data is linked together, there is an option to prepare reports out of it. We are very impressed with its reporting capabilities."

"An improvement on previous versions because it comes as preconfigured as possible."

"The filtering options are very good once you learn them. The document reports are also valuable. You can create reports in Word and PDF formats. That's very useful."

"The feature I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its ability to integrate with the CI/CD stack."

"We are seeing some real improvements in the way we do things. We are becoming more agile in the way we do it because of that and in a way that stories are managed. Stories are given lifecycles as opposed to just being entities within a tool."

More OpenText ALM Octane pros

Cons

"It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified."

"The documentation really should be improved by including real examples and more setup cases."

"The aspect that requires attention is the user management component. When integrating with BitLabs and authenticating through GitLab, there are specific features we desire. One important feature is the ability to import users directly from GitLab, along with their respective designations, and assign appropriate privileges based on that information. Allocating different privileges to users is a time-consuming process for us."

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

"The cluster architecture that we implemented was server to server communication: Octane application to Elasticsearch and Elasticsearch to another Elasticsearch service. Recently, we found this is a security gap. The Octane application is interacting with Elasticsearch server, but that was missing from the requirements and prerequisites in the setup. The Micro Focus team has not given advice on how to implement authentication-based communication between Octane to Elasticsearch, and we found it as a gap later, then our security team asked us to fix that gap. So, there was a lot of time spent on rework."

"The reporting is lacking from a requirements matrix and a traceability perspective."

"The solution should improve by adding scrum board-like functionality."

"I have yet to experience the CI/CD part of Micro Focus ALM Octane but as demonstrated by the team who is providing the services, I see that the CI/CD could improve. When we check in the code, for the code snippet that has been checked in by a particular user, you need to open a separate file. When comparing Micro Focus ALM Octane to Jira, they have a separate window in which you can click on the ID and the code is visible in the snippet. It's a two-step process in Micro Focus ALM Octane and it's a single-step process in Jira. It's essential for the developers to think about this difference."

"Documentation is not clear."

"There are some challenges when we want to integrate the tool with other products, and it takes time for a team to figure out how to do it."

"There's a trend in our requests to have the ability to export data, en masse, out of Octane. There are capabilities within Octane to export data, but there are specifics around test suites and requirements and relations, as well as certain attributes, that we would like to be able to export easily out of Octane and into a database or Excel."

"Promoting it more could help a lot of projects."

More OpenText ALM Octane cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an open-source and free tool."

"This is an open-source solution and it is inexpensive."

"The comparison is always with Jira, so the pricing of Octane is a bit on the higher side. But if you look at what you have to add to Jira, on the plug-in side, to have the same abilities you have with Octane, you're more or less even, or even ahead with Octane."

"ALM Octane is very expensive."

"If you compare the price with the functionality, it is pretty much the same as other solutions. If you compare it to Jira, for instance, it has a lot more functionality. You don't need any plug-ins, but it's also more expensive. Once you start adding your different plug-ins to Jira, you'll probably end up with the same amount or more. There is also a yearly support cost, which is usually 25% of the initial cost of the license."

"It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time."

"I rate the tool's pricing an eight on a scale from one to ten, where ten is very expensive."

"The product is highly priced compared to other tools."

"The solution has reduced our testing costs."

"It's expensive. HPE products, and now Micro Focus, have always been expensive. The license is not cheap, and it will always be a challenge, particularly for small organizations like ours."

More OpenText ALM Octane pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Retailer

12%

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

26%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GoCD?

The UI is colorful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GoCD?

The product is free of cost.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GoCD?

One area of product improvement is the access control system. It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be sim...

See all answers

Is Jira better or would you go with Micro Focus ALM Octane?

Hi Netanya, Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the approp...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Octane?

The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Octane?

OpenText ALM Octane is an expensive product. However, it offsets costs by saving time and money, thus creating a balance between expenses and benefits. Our organization with over 1500 users sees sa...

See all answers

Comparisons

GitLab vs GoCD

Compared 35% of the time

Jenkins vs GoCD

Compared 26% of the time

GitHub Actions vs GoCD

Compared 18% of the time

Tekton vs GoCD

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs GoCD

Compared 10% of the time

More GoCD Competitors

Jira vs OpenText ALM Octane

Compared 49% of the time

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText ALM Octane

Compared 26% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText ALM Octane

Compared 8% of the time

Rally Software vs OpenText ALM Octane

Compared 3% of the time

TFS vs OpenText ALM Octane

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText ALM Octane Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

April 2025

Download GoCD product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText ALM Octane

April 2025

Download OpenText ALM Octane product report

Also Known As

Adaptive ALM, Thoughtworks Go

Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane

Overview

GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers businesses a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility. It was designed for continuous delivery and the concepts essential to this practice are built in at the core.

Thoughtworks

OpenText ALM Octane helps organizations implement a “quality everywhere” approach and improve Agile and DevOps development and testing processes to improve the flow of work across the software delivery value stream. You can tightly align quality efforts from development to release, employ a broad range of tests anchored by automation, and continuously monitor and improve for increased throughput. OpenText fosters an open approach so that quality is visible, traceable, and continuously improved. By synchronizing quality and testing with Agile and DevOps processes, risks are mitigated early in the software delivery value stream – speeding the way for faster delivery and improved customer satisfaction.

ALM Octane facilitates a tailored and scalable approach for large enterprises. You can deploy your way and minimize infrastructure needs with deployment options spanning on-premises, SaaS, and public cloud (Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure Marketplaces). Similarly, various licensing options can tailor the features to meet specific needs with support for thousands of concurrent users in geographically disperse locations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Ancestry.com, Barclay Card, AutoTrader, BT Financial Group, Gamesys, Nike, Vodafone, Haufe Lexware, Medidata, Hoovers

Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology

Buyer's Guide

GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane

April 2025

Free Report: GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane

Find out what your peers are saying about GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GoCD vs. OpenText ALM Octane 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.