We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Rally Software 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."It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"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."
"When it comes to the valuable features of Rally Software, it excels at burn-down charts, burn-up charts, and road mapping once it's set up. I particularly appreciated the new feature for releases and road mapping, which worked exceptionally well."
"The most valuable features are in-line editing, easy custom view setup, intuitive and helpful visuals (e.g., contextual formatting) and the collaboration features."
"It helps me evaluate teams' historical performance using velocity charts."
"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."
"It is very stable. It has been on the market a long time."
"Tech support is very responsive, helpful, and available."
"The Defect feature. In one view you can see all your defects and you can push them into the different releases."
"My teams uses it for their daily agile management. They describe their user stories and track the progress of their projects."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"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."
"As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing."
"A lot of the features that we would be looking to add, I am learning may not be within Agile Central, but part of another CA tool set."
"It could improve by being self-organizing: user stories, different hierarchies, and different perspectives. Not just as a single hierarchical structure, but something that can be multidimensional."
"We did submit an enhancement request. I think a lot of teams that do very large scale products have the same issue. They just do not realize it would help them."
"I think there is a missing link with the development activity. Some developers are pushing in new versions of the code, but you cannot make the link from the user story to a specific application version."
"The stronger CA can get on dependency mapping the better. That's the biggest hiccup. As you're setting up your features, they should make it easier to flag the dependencies, either across features or across projects. Then you're more set up for success."
"Rally Software is highly complex, and it takes some effort to get everything tied together. But once you do, it's a satisfying experience, and the result looks beautiful. Azure, ServiceNow, and Jira do not have all the features that Rally Software provides in one place, making it an exceptional tool for project management."
"The product needs to have more integration capabilities."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "Good discussion and note-taking capabilities but hard to track the changes". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and IBM Engineering Test Management, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, TFS, Jira Align and GitLab. See our OpenText 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.
