We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very reliable as a solution."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"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."
"Templates: Allows us to standardize fields, workflows throughout hundreds of HPE ALM projects."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". 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 Rational Quality Manager is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Jama Connect. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.
