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."All of the tracking features are the most valuable because it allows me to see where we stand today and every day."
"This product provides you a good view of the status of your projects."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"Jira is easy to use and there are a lot of tools that are integrated with it."
"It's a Scrum tool, so it's very easy to use."
"The solution is extremely stable."
"Issue linking has enabled teams to trace issues."
"The workflows are very easy to handle as far as scalability goes."
"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."
"It is stable and reliable."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"Defect management is very good."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"The biggest complaint industry-wide about JIRA is they need to purchase additional extensions, such as reporting automation. If they could provide some additional extensions from the initial purchase it would be a huge benefit."
"The reporting part is a little bit difficult for me. It is not so easy. There should be a simpler way to track the efforts of our team. For example, in an Excel sheet, there is a feature for filtering. It would be much better if we can use something like that. Currently, for a complex query, we need to use Jira Query Language. Using Jira Query Language every time is not efficient for me."
"Something I do not like about the new version is that there is a need to browse all the way back to the beginning, should a person click on a task that is specifically for his group and wish to go back and look at the other portfolios or people."
"What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product."
"There needs to be a way to export a user story."
"We have gone through several version changes and some of those changes have not been intuitive. There was a learning curve and we had some complaints internally about the changes, such as the new interface."
"Lacks field-level permission in the cloud version."
"They are not supporting in-house servers anymore and I think I've got until January to port this to something else."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve how the automation process works. Addiotnlally, the parallel execution needs to be optimized. For example, if multiple users, which are two or more users, are doing an execution, while we execute the cases, I have seen some issues in the progress."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews. Jira is rated 8.0, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Jira writes "Stable with good documentation and needs very little maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "It is a stable solution, and customer service is its most valuable feature". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Polarion ALM and Digital.ai Agility, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis Tosca. 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.