Micro Focus ALM Quality Center alternatives and competitors

We are a solution provider and as a consultant, I have evaluated codeBeamer ALM for some of our clients. One of our clients is using this solution to work on medical products, and we have other clients such as telecoms who provide services.

The features related to metrics are very useful. These are available in other products, but in codeBeamer, they are very simple to use. You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily.

The connectivity in terms of the lifecycle from inception to end is very good. 

You should be able to combine multiple parameters in a single gadget, and you should be able to retrieve that particular value. For example, if a feature is in support, we want to understand things like how many days it has been there, how many users have searched for it, and so on, for a specific period of time. Being able to track how many days it has been in support is important, but there might be a lot of these different parameters. Having a single value generated would be helpful for tracking.

During the initial setup, I did not see any documentation to assist users with the steps that are required to get started.

I would like to see more, easily trackable reports. Ultimately, I would like to see real-time data, real-time reports, and real-time data analytics.

I have found the technical support to be good, although the length of time you will wait for response depends on the complexity or difficulty of the issue. For simple activities they will do some research and get back to you, and with something of medium difficulty they will take a few extra minutes. However, for complex issues, they will take a lot of time.

I have taken courses on Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, but have not used it for more than two years. I find that codeBeamer ALM is easier to use.

I have also used Jira and I find it to be a very simple tool. If you want functionality then you have to buy other gadgets to do it. Another drawback with Jira is that you have to write SQL queries, which people don't have time for.

I found the initial setup to be easy, but I know these tools very well. I would say that the process is straightforward, although I did not see any documentation. For a new user, they have to follow a lot of steps and it is harder without instructions.

Initially, this product used to be deployed on-premises. For the past four years, it is normally deployed on a public cloud, although for some high-security users, it is deployed on a private cloud. Our customer who works on medical products keeps everything on-premises because they don't want to risk their data being exposed. The telecoms prefer a cloud deployment because with the bulk of their data in the cloud, they have easy access to all of the details from around the globe.

I do not see any problem with the cost. It is reasonably priced and in accordance with the industry standards.

When it came time to evaluate ALM solutions for some of our clients, codeBeamer ALM was the one that we chose. I have implemented small projects for evaluation purposes to ensure that it meets their needs.

Overall, I have about 16 years of experience in Agile processes, and about 10 years of experience with ALM products. I am CSM/CSPO certified and work with Agile a lot, which has put in a good position to evaluate these products.

My advice to anybody who is implementing codeBeamer is to make sure to understand what data is needed from multiple ends. You need to use the concept of data warehousing and BI reports.

I find it very simple and easy to use, but there are several areas in need of improvement.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

It is used by the agile teams for product development and feature management.

It provides very good visibility and traceability. You can clearly see each and every part of a process. It is also user-friendly and robust.

It is working well, and there are a lot of add-ons or plug-ins out there that you can use. 

It would be good if we can grant access based on the roles. This is something that Jira can look into. Currently, anyone with Jira access can access everything. Being able to define access based on the roles will give us more flexibility in managing Jira.

I would like to have more reports in Jira. Currently,  eight or nine reports are there. You can use Screen Test to get more reports or data from Jira, but you will have to get more add-ons, plug-ins, and stuff like that. It would be good if they can increase the number of reports.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable. I don't see any instability in Jira.

It is easily scalable. We have around 1,500 users.

I have not directly interacted with Jira's technical support. We have an internal Jira service desk for any issues.

I have used HP ALM, version 11, and it was not so robust. I found Jira to be more robust. In HP ALM, you can define the requirements and test cases and map them, but you cannot see the in-depth requirements, whereas Jira provides more visibility, and you can see each and every part of a process very clearly. It is more open and user-friendly. 

Traceability is very important for the SDLC process, testing lifecycle, and audits, which is one of the key features that Jira provides. It provides detailed traceability so that you can easily know about the sprints and change requests. With HP ALM, you can define requirements only in one or two lines. It is more of a testing tool. It is not a development lifecycle tool.

The initial setup for Jira was done by a third-party vendor, so we did not face any issues. The migration from an older application to Jira was not so easy, and it required a lot of effort.

It was implemented by a third-party vendor. It requires maintenance, but it is not so difficult to maintain. For maintenance and administration, we have an internal Jira service desk.

You need to do upgrades because you tend to have requirements from different stakeholders. You also have different add-ons and plugins, and Jira also keeps on releasing new versions that might be useful.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Jira a seven out of ten because there are some areas to be improved in Jira.

We use it for test case repository and test management. My primary role is quality assurance. I've got one developer who looks at the SQL, upgrades, and a few other things. I do the customization, integration, and normal administration for granting access. I also provide user support and help users with training, guidance, demos, etc. I handle 80% work, and the developer handles the remaining 20% of work on this solution.

From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence.

It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for.

I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT.

Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited.

The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application.

I have been using TestRail for two years.

I have not contacted technical support.

I learned to work with this solution, but if I had to choose a solution, it wouldn't be TestRail.
I also use ALM, and it is my preferred tool. Tosca also has the same quality level as ALM.

Its price is definitely not more. If they introduce automation, they can charge more.

I would not recommend this solution. My primary role is quality assurance. From a quality assurance perspective, there are too many limitations. There is too much integration or too many APIs that need to be written constantly. It doesn't actually give you traceability from the requirements or systems perspective. If I wanted to run automation for coverage of a system, TestRail doesn't give me that.

I would rate TestRail a five out of ten.