We performed a comparison between Atlassian ALM 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.
"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."
"This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."
"The most valuable feature is the Scrum board."
"My teams uses it for their daily agile management. They describe their user stories and track the progress of their projects."
"What I like the most about Agile Central is that it is the only system I need to have full control and visibility of our entire body of work plus the activities and processes required to deliver it."
"Its ability to scale."
"It allows us to work in a more dynamic fashion and track more of the development lifecycle."
"It helps me evaluate teams' historical performance using velocity charts."
"The most valuable features of Rally Software are the executive dashboards, ease of use, and many other features. They have encapsulated everything that a GI can do, such as monitoring, maintaining, and then releasing. It's continuous integration and development."
"The Defect feature. In one view you can see all your defects and you can push them into the different releases."
"Ease of use - I don't even know when a new release is coming and I don't need to because it's so easy to use what's new."
"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."
"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."
"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."
"In Rally Software, the connection with GitLab and GitHub needs improvement."
"CA Agile Central does not have a workflow tool included."
"I think there needs to be some simplification. The team-level side can be challenging and complicated."
"I'd like to be able to color code timeboxes, so I have an easy visual way to track the success of sprints."
"In terms of improvement, perhaps some more metrics. If they could add some additional, that would be cool."
"More importantly, we are seeing internal challenges from Atlassian because of their highly integrated suite that enables further automation and centralization of activities that are also highly necessary – messaging notifications cued off builds, collaboration on Solution Architecture Documentation, etc."
"I would like to see more Kanban support. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have the features or the layouts that the teams really need to be able to execute their tasks. It almost tries to force you into more of a Scrum style."
"The product needs to have more integration capabilities."
Atlassian ALM is ranked 17th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. Atlassian ALM is rated 7.6, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Atlassian ALM writes "Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "Good discussion and note-taking capabilities but hard to track the changes". Atlassian ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational ALM and Polarion ALM, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, TFS, Jira Align and Codebeamer. See our Atlassian ALM 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.
