We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"What's most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is that it's useful for these activities: test designing, test planning, and test execution."
"Cross project customization through template really helps to maintain standards with respect to fields, workflows throughout the available projects."
"It has a brand new look and feel. It comes with a new dashboard that looks nice, and you can see exactly what you have been working with."
"The integration with UFT is nice."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"We are looking for more automation capabilities."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". 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 ". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Jama Connect. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.