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 integration between Confluence and Jira, along with Jira's ticketing system, is a valuable feature the product offers its users."
"The UI is good. It's simple and not very complicated. It's very good for tracking."
"The most valuable features of this solution are workflow and reporting."
"It is very flexible, so we can do pretty much what we want with it."
"We like team collaboration and cross-functional collaboration."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the source linking on the commit level to git."
"I have experience with Jira's bulk tracking and issue management. We use it to add new features to our product, fix bugs, and address customer feedback."
"I like it for team collaboration and task management. I also like its analytics and dashboards."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"Most of the features that I like the best are more on the analytics side."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"I would like our clients' IT group to be able to have oversight without setting up agents. We're managing tickets, and I'd like their IT group to see everything we're doing without having to set them up as agents. There should be a better way of managing their users. I've got such requests, but Jira is expensive, and it is difficult to pay an agent fee for somebody else to view these tickets. Currently, the only way in which I can do that is by setting a user up as an agent, and it becomes cost-prohibitive. They need to do a better job on ticket viewers."
"I would like integrated requirements management, so we do not have to buy plug-ins for JIRA, since it was hard to get requirements management for it."
"Pretty much 70% - 80% of the Next-Gen Projects features are still to be developed."
"It should have its own repository for test case creation, so that one does not have to resort to third-party tools and plugins."
"Scripts should be more readily available for implementing projects."
"Jira required a significant amount of system resources, particularly for larger organizations with extensive workflows and numerous projects."
"I don't know whether there is a Jira problem or a test risk problem, however, sometimes, we face issues on fetching the reports."
"The solution needs more integrations with Azure DevOps OnPrem."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 259 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.