"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"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."
"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."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions."
"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 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."
"We use the roadmap features, and we're getting better at using dates to use the roadmap so that we can see if we're on target for work."
"The product has excellent customizable reports."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"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."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"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."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable."
"What I don't like about it is that it is really hard to find old work to reference information and use the reporting section of the application in terms of trying to analyze trends. If I am trying to find out which interfaces took this long and I want to compare and measure improvement from one quarter to another quarter, the reporting mechanism within Rally is very troublesome. They have an Excel plugin that you're supposed to use, but you literally have to pull the raw data out before you can do the analysis. You can't do it within Rally, and if you can, it is a secret, and I don't know how to do it. It should have better, easier, and user-friendly reporting without having to use the Excel add-in. It is very clunky. There is a lot of data in there, but it is not organized in such a way that makes it intuitive. You really have to kind of look for where do you put your documentation or dates. Some customization is available, but it is not plug-and-play like Jira. When I switched from TFS to Jira, I just went and started using Jira, whereas with Rally, you kind of have to really get in and figure out what you need to do before you set stuff up, or you're going to get yourself stuck. You can just start using Jira and be successful."
"The product needs to have more integration capabilities."
Micro Focus ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass to govern software quality and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes. Designed for complex multi-application environments, organizations can achieve high efficiency in their testing and measure quality with a requirements-driven and risk-based testing approach. Advanced reporting provides a complete view across all releases to gain new insights and make informed decisions. With numerous deployment options, open integrations with common tools and strong data controls, ALM/Quality Center is a perfect choice for enterprises that need to enforce standards, ensure compliance and adapt to changing tools.
With Rally Software, you can plan, prioritize, manage, track, and continuously improve your work so that you can deliver the value that your customers need with speed, quality, and efficiency. Our enterprise-class Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) SaaS platform provides visibility into progress, roadblocks, and dependencies across multiple teams, projects, and programs. This allows you to align to your strategic goals and create better business results, and to do it all in a single system of record.
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 29 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 2 reviews. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 7.4, while Rally Software is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "Makes it easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "Useful for seeing if we are on target for work, but it is not intuitive and should have easier and user-friendly reporting without having to use the Excel add-in". Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Tricentis qTest and IBM Rational Quality Manager, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, TFS, Digital.ai Agility and Micro Focus ALM Octane. See our Micro Focus ALM Quality Center vs. Rally Software 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.