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."It is a stable solution."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"An improvement on previous versions because it comes as preconfigured as possible."
"The most important feature is the integration among all the different features in just one tool: Agile management system, requirements management system, test management, defects management, automatic test execution. Really, if you're looking at other tools, you will never find all that integrated into just one tool with all the traceability, with all the elements in just one place."
"Micro Focus' technical support is good."
"Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center."
"The feature I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its ability to integrate with the CI/CD stack."
"The dashboards and metric reporting are valuable features."
"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."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"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."
"We’d like to see Platform One/Iron Bank compliant containers."
"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."
"There's a trend in our requests to have the ability to export data, en masse, out of Octane. There are capabilities within Octane to export data, but there are specifics around test suites and requirements and relations, as well as certain attributes, that we would like to be able to export easily out of Octane and into a database or Excel."
"We have some requests to beef up the manual testing abilities and the ability to report on testing progress. All the basics are there, but there's an issue of maintainability. For example... once you plan a test and it creates a run, more particularly a suite run, you can't edit the suite run afterward... That that is not realistic with how people work. Mistakes are made and people are humans and we change our minds about things. So the tool needs to allow for a bit more flexibility in that testing area, as well as some better widgets to report on progress."
"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."
"It could use just some small improvements. I would like additional features, like planning features, user story mapping, or connection to collaboration tools."
"Octane, from an administration perspective, is very limited. The application is improving with each release but what is missing is the ability to manage users and workspaces. I would also like "usable" reporting for more than a few workspaces. Also still missing is the ability to copy a workspace or get data in or out, except for limited REST calls."
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.