We performed a comparison between IBM Rational ALM, Jira, and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration."
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."
"We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space."
"The integration with Git works well."
"The solution is customizable."
"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete."
"I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten."
"The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."
"Overall, it is very intuitive. It is so lightweight and easy to use. It is easy to manage our product backlog and user stories, and it produces great reports."
"We have the best community to support any problems that we have."
"I'm working in the IT department, and the ticketing system is the most important service for us. We are also using some automation add-ons. It a very good product for handling tickets and tasks and managing processes. It is also very useful and easy to use."
"The monitoring, flexibility and tracking are really good in Jira."
"I have experience with Jira's bulk tracking and issue management. We use it to add new features to our product, fix bugs, and address customer feedback."
"In Jira, the integrations I have used so far are the repository integration, like when it gets added, or the integration with Confluence, which is good."
"It has an easy UI that can easily plug-in to every level."
"Jira is great for story management."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"The stability is very good."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"Some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer."
"The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."
"I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."
"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."
"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"The stability of this solution can be improved."
"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."
"The solution can improve by including test management functionality in a native bundle without plugins."
"For our company, we're thinking about not only project management solutions but also collaboration solutions, and maybe if Jira had a chart or quick commenting option, it would be great."
"Jira is raising their prices for the license, which is like a trap because many other providers offer services like Jira but for much cheaper."
"My main concern is the administration of projects, especially user groups, and this requires root access rights but there is no concept of layered admin rights."
"I have to go through a lot of processes to consider it done. I have to log in then change the logins and make it interesting. It's not so good for testing."
"The solution could improve by having its own tool for quality lifecycle management."
"Jira's collaboration and integration with other apps and tools could be improved."
"From the project management perspective, I would say there are a lot of different issues that could be tweaked. There can be small improvements with traceability, for example."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"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."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
