We performed a comparison between Jira 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."The solution provides users with clarity in terms of the scope of work in a given timeframe."
"The solution offers up great transparency that makes it possible for everyone inside the departmental organization to see what's happening."
"We can integrate a lot of tools with the solution."
"The product provides high flexibility to create new workflows quickly."
"The JIRA user interface looks great. It's an overall good experience. It's very intuitive in the sense that you understand how it's going to work. It's very self-explanatory, and it's beneficial overall."
"The solution has been very stable overall."
"The most valuable features of this solution are workflow and reporting."
"The ordinary user has an interface that is very clear."
"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."
"The stability is very good."
"ALM is a well-known product and is one of the pioneers in providing test management facilities with a 360 degree view of requirements."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"Business process management is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"From the project management perspective, I would say there are a lot of different issues that could be tweaked. There can be small improvements with traceability, for example."
"The work items structure is not hierarchical and that needs to be changed. It's too flat."
"Jira lacks easy capacity calculation compared to TFS, making it harder to know how much work to allocate to each specialist."
"If I'm comparing it to ALM Octane, the documentation is not as robust as ALM Octane's documentation. So, they can improve on the documentation side."
"I'd like the solution to be more secure."
"I would like to have a future-proof idea of the cost and the roadmap for my class."
"It would be ideal if the solution could be available as a mobile application."
"I don't know if it's the way it's deployed in the organization, but the interface we are provided is not as customizable as other tools. The multi-language report is not enabled in our installation. I don't really know if it's something related to the tool or our installation."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"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."
"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."
"ALM requires that you install client side components. If your organization does not allow admin rights on your local machine, this means you will need someone to run the installation for you with admin rights. This client side install is also limited to Internet Explorer and does not support any other browsers."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 257 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Jira is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". 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 ". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Digital.ai Agility, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Jira 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.
Micro Focus ALM is a complete Test Management tool that can cover Requirements management, Defects management, Test Plan, Test Execution Suites as well as automation test executions with MF UFT (former HP QC). If you have a testing heavy project then MF ALM covers all the testing expectations well.
However, in an integrated environment with development, releases, and testing, JIRA can offer a better experience for JIRA issues (for requirements and incidents/defects), add-on for testing from JIRA marketplace (e.g. X-Ray) and offers a better fitment for DevOps. Developers and testers can work with the same tool for defects. requirements i.e. JIRA and manage testing with JIRA add-ons for Test Management.
I don't know enough about Micro Focus ALM but based from what I have seen it does provide a lot more than JIRA. I have worked with Azure DevOps and know that it can also provide more than JIRA. AZURE DevOps seems to be similar in comparison with Micro Focus ALM. So I would say if it was between JIRA and Micro Focus, then I will choose the latter.