IBM Rational ALM vs OpenText ALM Octane comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
1,578 views|1,153 comparisons
73% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
8,146 views|4,128 comparisons
94% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational ALM and OpenText ALM Octane 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.
To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,886 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete.""The integration with Git works well.""At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online.""It's easy to use.""It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us.""We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space.""I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten.""One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration."

More IBM Rational ALM Pros →

"A valuable feature is the pipeline, so that we can now connect to Jenkins and then have all the results from testing, from external, in the tool, so that we can see the whole approach from there. Also, We can work with labels so we have better filtering solutions than in ALM. And it's much smarter and leaner to use than ALM.""It's more streamlined because we have it all under one umbrella. And once the business requirements and rules have been created, we can do test cases and apply them to the business rules.""The integration points are very good. Octane gives us a window not only into our manual testing, but also our automation testing and our performance testing. We can see all results from all three streams of testing in one place.""The interface is user-friendly.""Its end-to-end traceability is one of the big advantages. Most of our agile projects work in a closed team structure. We are seeing what is the flow, where we are, and what is the project milestone. So, it provides end-to-end traceability and good visibility of project milestones.""The filtering options are very good once you learn them. The document reports are also valuable. You can create reports in Word and PDF formats. That's very useful.""People really how easy it is to customize. In some previous tools, that has been very limited, or you had to know how to write code to do some of the customizations, or it was very confusing. Going back to the user interface, they've made the customization of the tool, the workspace settings, very easy for people to figure out and use.""The most useful feature of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the dashboards, they are easy to use."

More OpenText ALM Octane Pros →

Cons
"The product must be more user-friendly.""The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate.""The reporting functionality needs to be improved.""Some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer.""The interconnectivity between packages is a major support problem and can be improved.""The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable.""The stability of this solution can be improved.""I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."

More IBM Rational ALM Cons →

"Octane, from an administration perspective, is very limited. The application is improving with each release but what is missing is the ability to manage users and workspaces. I would also like "usable" reporting for more than a few workspaces. Also still missing is the ability to copy a workspace or get data in or out, except for limited REST calls.""The solution should improve by adding scrum board-like functionality.""Technical support can be slow.""We have some requests to beef up the manual testing abilities and the ability to report on testing progress. All the basics are there, but there's an issue of maintainability. For example... once you plan a test and it creates a run, more particularly a suite run, you can't edit the suite run afterward... That that is not realistic with how people work. Mistakes are made and people are humans and we change our minds about things. So the tool needs to allow for a bit more flexibility in that testing area, as well as some better widgets to report on progress.""Also, while there is a Requirements Module in Octane, it is very plain. It's okay to have some requirements described there, but it's not really following the whole BDD approach. I would like to have more features for requirements in there.""What could be improved in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its integration with Jira.""There are some challenges when we want to integrate the tool with other products, and it takes time for a team to figure out how to do it.""When I manage projects that are being created in ALM, I have a standard template, but I don't have a template for them in Octane. I literally have to create the project from the ground up every time, which for an administrator, is a nightmare solution"

More OpenText ALM Octane Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."
  • "We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."
  • "This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."
  • "IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."
  • "The solution is not cheap."
  • More IBM Rational ALM Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Pricing is the weakest point. It is expensive, but the tool has plenty of features. The main problem we have is that the pricing is very high compared to some other solutions."
  • "It will be as expensive as ALM.NET, if not more expensive. But here's a good tip: If you have ALM.NET, you are able to share your licenses from ALM.NET to Octane. You just have to define a dedicated number of licenses on ALM.NET and then you can share them with ALM Octane, with some configuration effort. This is something that you have to take into account, that there is a possibility of such license sharing that could decrease your costs. Compared to open-source tools, the price the ALM Octane is definitely higher, in terms of the licensing cost."
  • "It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time."
  • "It's expensive. HPE products, and now Micro Focus, have always been expensive. The license is not cheap, and it will always be a challenge, particularly for small organizations like ours."
  • "For what it does, it's very reasonably priced. I like the licensing model as well, because it's very flexible. You can scale licenses up and down for short periods of time."
  • "In terms of pricing, it's comparable to what we had previously. It's not priced at the higher end of the scale by any means. It's priced nicely, in the middle of the market. For what you're getting, it's a very good tool."
  • "Going forward, I think we will want to explore adding more licenses."
  • "The solution has reduced our testing costs."
  • More OpenText ALM Octane Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
    768,886 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:We have some special needs. The product does not support our needs perfectly. The GUI is a little bit outdated. There are not many diagrams that help us organize or plan the work for the team. The… more »
    Top Answer:We have three modules. The DOORS module is for requirements. RTC is for storage planning and workflow planning. We also use the module for quality. We use IBM Rational ALM as the main tool to plan… more »
    Top Answer:Hi Netanya Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the… more »
    Top Answer:The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
    Top Answer:The product is highly priced compared to other tools. However, it offers substantial value. There is a distinction between OEM pricing and the final pricing for customers. They could understand the… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    1,578
    Comparisons
    1,153
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    396
    Rating
    7.4
    Views
    8,146
    Comparisons
    4,128
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    534
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational ALM, MKS
    Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
    Learn More
    Overview
    Lifecycle management capabilities built on the open, unifying IBM Rational Jazz platform can help agile and traditional teams: see at-a-glance status, access better data for decisions, manage costs, reuse the most efficient processes across the organization, manage cloud, web, SOA and mobile application design and development. Teams can also gain real-time traceability, manage work across vendors, unify across a diverse set of lifecyle tools, and provide collaborative development for continuous delivery as part of the IBM DevOps solution.

    OpenText ALM Octane helps organizations implement a “quality everywhere” approach and improve Agile and DevOps development and testing processes to improve the flow of work across the software delivery value stream. You can tightly align quality efforts from development to release, employ a broad range of tests anchored by automation, and continuously monitor and improve for increased throughput. OpenText fosters an open approach so that quality is visible, traceable, and continuously improved. By synchronizing quality and testing with Agile and DevOps processes, risks are mitigated early in the software delivery value stream – speeding the way for faster delivery and improved customer satisfaction.

    ALM Octane facilitates a tailored and scalable approach for large enterprises. You can deploy your way and minimize infrastructure needs with deployment options spanning on-premises, SaaS, and public cloud (Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure Marketplaces). Similarly, various licensing options can tailor the features to meet specific needs with support for thousands of concurrent users in geographically disperse locations.

    Sample Customers
    Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst
    Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company38%
    Manufacturing Company23%
    Comms Service Provider15%
    Government8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Manufacturing Company22%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Government8%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider27%
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Transportation Company19%
    Consumer Goods Company4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm28%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise21%
    Large Enterprise58%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise76%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise3%
    Large Enterprise79%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise8%
    Large Enterprise79%
    Buyer's Guide
    IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,886 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational ALM is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 38 reviews. IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2, while OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational ALM writes "A complex deployment that is not stable, but is cloud-based". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM Octane writes "Reporting engine, widgets, and dashboards are a huge plus, and powerful REST interface means we can interact with other tools". IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Rally Software. See our IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane 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.