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 of other open source tools with Jira is very useful. It allows us to create documents and transcriptions, making it versatile beyond software development."
"For QA, the most interesting for me are boards, backlog, and filters."
"It provides very good visibility and traceability. You can clearly see each and every part of a process. It is also user-friendly and robust. It is working well, and there are a lot of add-ons or plug-ins out there that you can use."
"The dynamic communication and the ability to customize it the way we want are the most valuable features."
"The solution has been very stable overall."
"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."
"It allows you to do a lot of stuff, and the functionality is pretty rich. It integrates well with other products, like GitLab, that we are currently intensely using at the company."
"The agile framework works well, and I pretty much live by that. Everything, such as sprint management, is laid out."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."
"I have had problems with performance and unresponsiveness. All of a sudden, the performance slowed down, and I had a number of users that could not use the tool."
"There could be an improvement in loading files and images for more than 50 MB. It would be good if it allowed more than 100 MB."
"There is a difference between their cloud and their server versions. The next-gen project, which is an advanced feature that allows you to visualize the road map of your delivery over multiple products and over time, is not available yet for the sever version. It appears there in the list, but it's still not right. I've tried to use it many times and I am watching the device show their tracker, but it seems they intentionally want this to increase the utilization of the cloud instead of the server. It is really a nice feature and it's a shame that we don't have it."
"Jira could provide more insight into sprints such as how did we perform in the last sprint compared to other sprints. It would be helpful to have metrics and a dashboard feature for others to see."
"A more organized hierarchy is important. Reporting and JQL create issues for me. They do not completely cover the reporting part that I need to report in terms of my capacity to plan. In the same token, there is no record at this very moment to provide me with one export with epics story points, tasks, or issues and their sub-tasks at the same time."
"Jira required a significant amount of system resources, particularly for larger organizations with extensive workflows and numerous projects."
"If Jira would be interested in offering a SharePoint version, it would be beneficial."
"One thing that I don't like about Jira is that when you do an export, it only allows a thousand issues. So the export feature needs to be better."
"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."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"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."
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.