We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and OpenText ALM Octane 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.
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"It is a stable solution."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The user experience is a lot better than any tool that I have used before. Overall, it is great. It has a smooth interface, which is very user-friendly. It makes it easier to work together and have more transparency and customization, which is very good."
"The feature I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its ability to integrate with the CI/CD stack."
"It is a very stable tool. The tool has been in the industry for so many years. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center."
"We like Micro Focus ALM Octane because its performance is okay, and its stability is okay, so we use it a lot. The platform is easy to use."
"I like the fact that you can use it on top of Jira."
"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 solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"When I manage projects that are being created in ALM, I have a standard template, but I don't have a template for them in Octane. I literally have to create the project from the ground up every time, which for an administrator, is a nightmare solution"
"Also, while there is a Requirements Module in Octane, it is very plain. It's okay to have some requirements described there, but it's not really following the whole BDD approach. I would like to have more features for requirements in there."
"There is an opportunity for them to do a little more with the dashboarding. We still feel that HPE Quality Center/HPE ALM reporting is very powerful. We talked with R&D, and there are some things on their roadmap, but at the same time, their strategy is to connect Octane with visualization tools such as Power BI."
"Because JIRA is a leading tool for both development and requirements management - everybody is using JIRA - I'm pretty there will be a use case where people are trying to connect between ALM Octane and JIRA. The back-end configuration of the synchronization with JIRA could be simplified. The architecture is really complicated. We required a lot of machines to build the cluster and the configuration was not really clearly described within the documentation. This may have something to do with the fact that the software is pretty new."
"The limitation of Octane is that we can't do a release outside of the sprint. We can only plan the release in the sprint. With Agile and JIRA tools, we can plan the release outside the sprint and do a global release of all the projects from the sprint."
"Technical support can be slow."
"We've only had a few stability issues. Generally, we have issues following any deployment they do, so if they do a deployment on a Sunday, then we may have a couple of issues on a Monday or Tuesday."
"I would like to see the mobile testing improved so that we can simply select a mobile device, then specify what parameters we want, and the testing will be run based on that."
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 38 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Has good technical support services, but the migration process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM Octane writes "Reporting engine, widgets, and dashboards are a huge plus, and powerful REST interface means we can interact with other tools". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management. See our Codebeamer vs. OpenText ALM Octane 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.
