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."Provides good output and is user-friendly."
"The ability to change and rewrite tasks is valuable. You can add a lot of columns, change the owners and the change the components."
"It is a stable solution, and we have had no issues with stability."
"It's an open-sourced product that is easy to customize."
"Our company follows the Agile methodology for software development, and this product is one of the best tools for companies that do so."
"I have found Jira to be stable."
"I like it for team collaboration and task management. I also like its analytics and dashboards."
"Jira can track projects, time management of assignments, and keep everything on schedule. The performance of the solution is good."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."
"When we use the plugin in Jira so, there are two different systems which we are working on, Jira and the X-ray plugin. The X-ray plugin should be incorporated into Jira because we have to fetch two reports. One report is faxed through Jira, and one can be faxed through X-ray. So there needs to be clarity about which the Jira team should reflect."
"The performance could be improved in the future."
"it would be helpful to have a better tutorial for learning and to have a better understanding of what the features are and what they do."
"I find the dashboard to be Jira's most problematic feature."
"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."
"The user interface and views on different devices should be improved."
"There needs to be a way to export a user story."
"I'd like the solution to be more secure."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
"Certain applications within this solution are not really compatible with certain applications like ERP. The problem is when we're trying to use these applications or devices, the solution itself doesn't scale."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"Lacks sufficient plug-ins."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"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."
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.