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 burndown chart is also helpful when it comes to reporting and allows us to know where we are going, especially during development."
"The features on offer are great. It has everything we need."
"The most valuable features of Jira are the dashboards and user interface. The processes within Jira to monitor, maintain and release are beneficial. It is a continuous development solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"Perfect for keeping track of large amounts of bugs, tasks queries and releases for fixes."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that it is a quite powerful user tracking system."
"Kanban board: The board is easy to use and visually impressive to non-IT users, who found it easy to relate to."
"It is a good defect tracking tool. It has a lot of capabilities and functionalities. There are a lot of graphs and a lot of tracking. It can be sprint-driven if you want."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"I would like to have a future-proof idea of the cost and the roadmap for my class."
"There are a limited number of gadgets accessible in Jira; thus, additional ones should be supported."
"The solution needs more integrations with Azure DevOps OnPrem."
"For a non-technical person to use, Jira is not intuitive."
"There is a difficulty viewing all the attachments because they are shown in one place. I would like attachments to be shown at the comment level."
"The release of a MailServer feature within Jira would be beneficial."
"Once the solution is deployed, it's not easy to configure."
"I would like to see visualization of release planning. I can list the releases and I can give dates to releases, but to show how they are happening on a timeline, I would need to order the Portfolio part. But just for this, it may be too much to use the Portfolio for that."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"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 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."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"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."
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.