We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and SpecFlow 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."Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"SpecFlow's best feature is the ability to add additional layers to the programming."
"One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."
"SpecFlow would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."
"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."
"I'd prefer in TFS if we could be writing test cases, not in the old classical version. We should be writing in Gherkin and then automatically have it convert that Gherkin test case into SpecFlow feature files."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while SpecFlow is ranked 9th in Test Management Tools with 4 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while SpecFlow is rated 7.2. 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 SpecFlow writes "Ensures efficient testing and validation of both business and technical requirements". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas SpecFlow is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest and TestRail. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. SpecFlow 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.