We performed a comparison between Jama Connect and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like Jama Connect because it's easy to use and understand. The widgets are great, and linking is straightforward. The solution is not complex compared to its competitors."
"You can get full traceability with any other system. It also includes a test module, and you build the traceability matrix incrementally throughout the development process."
"It is good at requirements management and test management."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"The most valuable feature is the user-friendly interface."
"Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"Technical support answers fairly quickly compared to others like IBM or Atlassian. They also offer quite a good knowledge base for advanced cases and how to plan it, etc. via videos that they provide. They are quite useful."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"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."
"There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement."
"Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects."
"I think there's room for improvement, especially with the review process. Reviews should be integrated with requirement evaluation instead of being separate from it. The review should not run parallel to the requirement."
"I believe one of the weak points is the reporting side. You must export inter-readable reports from Jama if you do not use the system as a repository for your design history file. Jama is great if you keep it in Jama, but reporting out requires some customization to get it right."
"t is rather slow, so the speed of the process and consuming information should be improved. It doesn't have a nice way of viewing information. We would like to see better interfaces for consuming information."
"The initial setup could be better, it's complicated."
"I have inquired about pricing for this solution but have not yet heard anything, so their response time in this regard is something that should be improved."
"The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"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."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"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."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jama Connect is ranked 13th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 9 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Jama Connect is rated 7.4, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Jama Connect writes "Agile, well structured, and has a great review module, which makes the design reviews smooth". 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 ". Jama Connect is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Polarion Requirements, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and TFS, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText Silk Central. See our Jama Connect vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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.