We performed a comparison between Jira and OpenText AccuRev 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 most valuable feature is working with sprints and having the ability to create sprints."
"It is easy to deploy in the cloud and other environments. It is also easy to view the reports of the sprint review or the sprint plan and the relation between the backlog and the repositories."
"This solution focuses on lean methodology which we have found useful and it can also be used on any device."
"It's really smart how they connected third-party vendors into their own marketplace. You can create and add apps. Anybody can do it."
"The timeline management is great."
"Has a good dashboard with good tracking features."
"The configurable workflows and boards make it easy for us to execute and oversee our own unique process."
"The product provides high flexibility to create new workflows quickly."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"The solution is 100% scalable. It's much more scalable than the customer's capacity for implementing it. We do plan to increase usage ourselves."
"The most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"The CACD solutions on JIRA has some plugins, but they are not easily understandable or workable."
"We'd like to use it with non-Agile projects in the future, however, right now, it is a very Agile-focused product."
"A more organized hierarchy is important. Reporting and JQL create issues for me. They do not completely cover the reporting part that I need to report in terms of my capacity to plan. In the same token, there is no record at this very moment to provide me with one export with epics story points, tasks, or issues and their sub-tasks at the same time."
"It lacks features to cover all testing aspects, so we often integrate it with other plugins or tools like X-ray."
"I have to go through a lot of processes to consider it done. I have to log in then change the logins and make it interesting. It's not so good for testing."
"The reporting needs to be improved."
"Sometimes, we create the same bug with two or three different Jira tickets in my company, which leads to duplication, making it an area where improvements are required."
"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."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"In the next release, I would like to have a repository for the code which is embedded. Apart from that, it has everything I need."
"What I'm missing from the solution is a repository for the code. Something like Git, for example. Some sort of depository for the code that is embedded."
Earn 20 points
Jira is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 266 reviews while OpenText AccuRev is ranked 23rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Jira is rated 8.2, while OpenText AccuRev is rated 8.6. 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 AccuRev writes "Good packaging features, but reporting is limited". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText AccuRev is most compared with Jama Connect. See our Jira vs. OpenText AccuRev 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.