Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText AccuRev vs OpenText Software Delivery Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText AccuRev
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
22nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Software Delivery ...
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Agile Planning Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of OpenText AccuRev is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Software Delivery Management is 5.8%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Sameh-Hablas - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps us with our compliance goals, native quality management systems and with the legacy systems in our organization
To improve the product, it needs some enhancement to the application's interface to be more user-friendly. The product has all the features that we need and we can depend upon it. My issue with the product is that it is not easy to use without a guide or a proper manual. That is my point. It is not very friendly to use. For example, we may need the application to be more friendly in other sorts of ways. If we have an integrated module that allows access to the features we want through one click, you do not need to make it two or three clicks on the screen. The interface can be better designed to easily provide access to the features you need. The feature I would like to see in the next release is just for it to be more friendly to use and to be like a smart application that intuits your movement through the application. It needs to be something that works smoothly and intelligent without any complicated navigation of screens.
GeorgNauerz - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable tool for sprint planning, test management, quality management, and automated testing
I think the area of release management in the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required. In general, the connection between releases and scrum teams needs improvement, as it could be optimized owing to its linkages, making it very uncomfortable as soon as you have strong teams or scrum teams that work with different items over several releases. In future product releases, the solution needs to focus a bit more on the metric part. The product's dashboard is a metric for productivity and process control.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The solution is 100% scalable. It's much more scalable than the customer's capacity for implementing it. We do plan to increase usage ourselves."
"The most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"I like the fact that you can use it on top of Jira."
"Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center."
"The most important feature is the integration among all the different features in just one tool: Agile management system, requirements management system, test management, defects management, automatic test execution. Really, if you're looking at other tools, you will never find all that integrated into just one tool with all the traceability, with all the elements in just one place."
"With an Octane project, we have our automation, our requirements, our tests, our pipeline into build-and-deploy, and the ability to identify problem areas. It makes things quicker because it's more along the lines of an automated process."
"The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services."
"It’s easy to set up."
"People really how easy it is to customize. In some previous tools, that has been very limited, or you had to know how to write code to do some of the customizations, or it was very confusing. Going back to the user interface, they've made the customization of the tool, the workspace settings, very easy for people to figure out and use."
"The integration capability of ALM Octane was very straightforward. We had a supporting team, and they provided us with detailed documentation."
 

Cons

"What I'm missing from the solution is a repository for the code. Something like Git, for example. Some sort of depository for the code that is embedded."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"In the next release, I would like to have a repository for the code which is embedded. Apart from that, it has everything I need."
"There are some challenges when we want to integrate the tool with other products, and it takes time for a team to figure out how to do it."
"Documentation is not clear."
"The reporting is lacking from a requirements matrix and a traceability perspective."
"Development of extensions or connections to GitHub actions could be better. Better integration with Azure DevOps would also help."
"They don't support all IDEs yet. We have Visual Studio code, which is not supported, and loved by our developers. This integration is missing. We also had to do our own in-house integration with the Confluence. That is also something that they could add."
"I think the area of release management in the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Globally, I don't see many major points of improvement. It's mostly plenty of little things, and it's weird to me that they are not in the product yet. They are really details, but they're annoying details... Today, in the tool, we've got plenty of assets we can handle, like requirements, user storage, defects, tasks and so on. And to all of those elements, we can add comments. We can add comments to any asset in Octane but not to tasks. It's just impossible to understand why it's not available for the tasks because it's available everywhere else. Similarly, for attachments, you can attach files absolutely everywhere except on automated runs, which is, again, awkward. I don't understand why on this element, in particular, you cannot do it. It's little touches like that."
"Technical support can be slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a lower cost than other top competetors."
"The product is highly priced compared to other tools."
"I would say that it is an affordable product. There is an annual service fee, which is one of the additional payments to be made apart from the standard licensing costs attached to the solution."
"It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time."
"The senior management of my company handles the purchases of the solution. However, the price per developer was a major reason we switched from Jira. Apart from the complexity and the support, the price was a major reason that a team of 20 people unanimously decided that we would prefer to go with Micro Focus ALM Octane rather than Jira. The senior management had seen some benefit in it and they preferred it over Jira because the per developer cost was less and the support was superior."
"ALM Octane is very expensive."
"For what it does, it's very reasonably priced. I like the licensing model as well, because it's very flexible. You can scale licenses up and down for short periods of time."
"The price of Micro Focus ALM Octane is too high compared to other solutions."
"The cost of this product is very high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Is Jira better or would you go with Micro Focus ALM Octane?
Hi Netanya, Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the approp...
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Octane?
The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Octane?
OpenText ALM Octane is an expensive product. However, it offsets costs by saving time and money, thus creating a balance between expenses and benefits. Our organization with over 1500 users sees sa...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus AccuRev, AccuRev
Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Akcelerant, SDL, CSG, Avid Technology Inc., Azimuth Systems Inc, Drivecam, Endgame, f5 Networks, Follett Software, Hyland Software, Indanet, Kronos, McAfee
Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText AccuRev vs. OpenText Software Delivery Management and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.