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."
"Jira is very user friendly, easy to install, and easy to access."
"I have found the most valuable features of Jira to be ticketing, life cycle workflow, definition, and creation. Many of the features are useful."
"It is a complete solution. It has more features as compared to other tools, especially the open-source one that we use. It is also easy to administer."
"I like it for team collaboration and task management. I also like its analytics and dashboards."
"The most valuable features are that it is good for tracking the issues and it provides for the usage of Confluence."
"Has a good dashboard with good tracking features."
"We use Jira for project management and tracking."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"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."
"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."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"We would like to see the integration of a lite-version of Confluence, just to manage some of the templates and documents."
"One major issue that I, and even our business stakeholders, have noticed is related to Epic Link. When Epic Link's background color is a dark color, it effectively becomes unreadable. I wish there was a way for us to change the text color of Epic Link in the Issue Navigator view."
"In terms of improvement, I think Jira (Jira Agile, specifically) can be made more user-friendly. Most of the time, when people are somewhat used to the process, they find it easy to work with. But the thing is, if I want to create a sprint, I'd like the ability for it to come out like a kind of board or something like that. For example, they could offer something like a wizard for users who want to quickly create a sprint on the spot with a few clicks. I think that could be useful."
"There is a difficulty viewing all the attachments because they are shown in one place. I would like attachments to be shown at the comment level."
"Based on the feedback from my admin, it is sometimes difficult to find some of the features. It is not a big deal, but its configuration interface can be improved to make it easy to find things."
"So at one point in time, they did a huge UI upgrade. At that time, I felt like they had changed something, so it was hard to figure out. Now that we are habituated, it's not an issue now."
"It is not intuitive."
"Jira has recently updated their UI, but more can be done to make it even better."
"The QA needs improvement."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"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."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"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."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 243 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Jira is rated 8.0, 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, 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.