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 solution offers a lot of plugins."
"The most valuable feature is working with sprints and having the ability to create sprints."
"In our organization, we use Jira for project management and usually use the Scrum project type. We might adjust the workflows and stages to better suit our needs, but we mostly use the default functionalities it offers to manage our projects."
"Jira's collaborative features, such as comments, notifications, and real-time updates, facilitate better communication."
"I have found Jira to be scalable."
"You no longer need to email people. You can mention them right in Jira and have conversations there."
"It's easy to escalate the issues to the product development team."
"The most valuable feature is the feature of assigning. Whenever I have an issue, Jira doesn't stop at just letting me describe the issue. I can also assign the issue to a developer, and the developer gets notified about it. After he is able to work on it, he can update the status and revert back to me through the same platform. It really avoids a lot of communication over email and phone. This the feature that I really like about Jira. I always use Jira with my team."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"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."
"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 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."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"It has a good response time."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"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."
"They could improve the solution by having a multiple project dashboard to be able to manage many projects KPI's at once, this would really be helpful."
"The work items structure is not hierarchical and that needs to be changed. It's too flat."
"Its ability to perform true executive-level status reporting could be improved. There are a lot of benefits there, but there are also a lot of things they can and should expand upon."
"There are some minor quirks, such as zero-point stories not appearing in the portfolio scope."
"Once a story is closed, all the records, versions, and documentation associated with it are gone. We lose the traceability of what was done."
"It is not capturing the number of hours for which each person has worked on certain things. We use many add-ons to let resources enter the time in the user story itself. We use an add-on called Tempo, but it is kind of a lousy add-on. It is not straightforward. Rather than helping us, it creates a lot of confusion. So, instead of looking out for the additional add-on, I would prefer to have the timesheet entered as a part of Jira itself. They are anyways capturing every information they could for each user story, and then we are able to break down all the task lists. For each task, we're also assigning a resource. So, while we're doing it, why can't they allow the users to enter the time that can be created as a report? Right now, we need to acquire the add-on, and the add-on is not great. It is not helping. The add-on is also not free."
"I'd like to see better notetaking capabilities so every user can get notes when someone provides comments on a Jira ticket. So if they don't want to provide the comments on the Jira ticket, they can get the personal notes in a Jira tool for every profile."
"For me, the solution is too complicated as it has too many features. It would be nice if they could streamline things."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"I'd like to see the concept of teams put into it."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"
"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."
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.