We performed a comparison between Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."I've never had a bug or a bug message that I needed to open a ticket for."
"I like the test cases in Jira. The orange dash items view was great, and I like the features and layout of the data. It's quite different, and people are now getting their items so quickly."
"The solution offers a lot of plugins."
"The JIRA user interface looks great. It's an overall good experience. It's very intuitive in the sense that you understand how it's going to work. It's very self-explanatory, and it's beneficial overall."
"Perfect for keeping track of large amounts of bugs, tasks queries and releases for fixes."
"It was easy to use. The consultants that we had on board were familiar with it. So, obviously, having a community that had used it before or was familiar with it was a positive thing."
"The solution has been very stable overall."
"Internally we use Jira for our own implementations and capturing requirements and our customers are using the whole tool for the whole software development life cycle. They're using it for the full life cycle of the product."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"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."
"What they do best is test management. That's their strong point."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"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."
"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."
"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"TFS’s test management capability without the expensive licensing has large gaps. Users will be unable to access performance testing and coded UI testing capabilities."
"I like its MTM (Microsoft Test Manager) section which gives us options to create various test plans and add test cases into it."
"The solution is very much stable."
"For what I need TFS for, I have never run into any limitation."
"User alerts are very helpful for knowing when work is required."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is integration."
"As far as queries are concerned, creating, grading, or customizing the queries as a primary requirement is very easy to do."
"The features are not intuitive. It would be good if there were templates."
"In terms of the general Jira software, one element that is missing is budget management. Perhaps such functionality exists in add-ons, however."
"The reporting needs to be better."
"It is not user-friendly."
"I would love to have more features to make nice documents, like Release Notes or a feature overview, right from JIRA."
"The only thing that JIRA doesn't for us is release management in a way that I can create a list of versions easily."
"What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product."
"Out-of-the-box reporting is limited. It would be helpful if more customisation was possible."
"We have had a poor experience with customer service and support."
"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."
"It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on."
"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."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"The usability of TFS is not that great."
"Not all of the functionality, which is exposed by the command line interface (tf.exe) is available in the Visual Studio GUI."
"They have room for improvement in merging the source code changes for multiple developers across files. It is very good at highlighting the changes that the source code automatically does not know how to handle, but it's not very good at reporting the ones that it did automatically. There are times when we have source code that gets merged, and we lose the changes that we expected to happen. It can get a little confusing at times. They can just do a little bit better on the merging of changes for multiple developers."
"I understand Microsoft is phasing out TFS in favor of Git, so I would steer anyone interested in TFS to look into Git."
"The dashboard and the customization of dashboards is an area they have to work on."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"The overall reports in TFS could improve. Additionally, there should be an easier way to migrate from an older version to a newer one."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
