We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Workflow Management and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Agile Planning Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Agile templates give us a standard methodology for every Agile project. Also, the ability to create our own object types and linkages to features/epics allows us to enhance the verification of feature readiness."
"We can track the status of test cases (passed or saved) in a single view. Based on releases and other attributes, we generate various reports and extract metrics from the data."
"Work distribution among team members and accountability for completion with a clearer picture."
"All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"With test execution, you have an option to create custom fields. It is also really user-friendly. With other tools, we only have restricted fields and we cannot customize or add new columns or fields that users can make use of while testing. ALM is very flexible for creating new fields. It is easy for users to understand the application."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"We have encountered issues with stability. We have seen where the entire system kind of goes for a toss when certain people use certain types of queries, which are very costly. Then the system kind of slows down a bit, and we have to monitor it."
"The solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"Currently, what's missing in the solution is the ability for users to see the ongoing scenarios and the status of those scenarios versus the requirements. As for the management tools, they also need to be improved so users can have a better idea of what's going on in just one look, so they can manage testing activities better."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
More IBM Engineering Workflow Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Workflow Management is ranked 10th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 14 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. IBM Engineering Workflow Management is rated 6.8, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Workflow Management writes "Offers good traceability elements but UI 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 ". IBM Engineering Workflow Management is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps, GitLab and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our IBM Engineering Workflow Management vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
We monitor all Enterprise Agile Planning 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.