OpenText ALM Octane vs PractiTest comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
8,146 views|4,128 comparisons
94% willing to recommend
PractiTest Logo
257 views|193 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM Octane and PractiTest 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The feature I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its ability to integrate with the CI/CD stack.""I like the fact that you can use it on top of Jira.""The filtering options are very good once you learn them. The document reports are also valuable. You can create reports in Word and PDF formats. That's very useful.""It is a very stable tool. The tool has been in the industry for so many years. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.""We are seeing some real improvements in the way we do things. We are becoming more agile in the way we do it because of that and in a way that stories are managed. Stories are given lifecycles as opposed to just being entities within a tool.""The defect management gives us full-fledged capabilities for handling defects, including capturing the details of the defects and even screenshotting the defect cases. The defect management is comprehensive.""The integration points are very good. Octane gives us a window not only into our manual testing, but also our automation testing and our performance testing. We can see all results from all three streams of testing in one place.""It's more streamlined because we have it all under one umbrella. And once the business requirements and rules have been created, we can do test cases and apply them to the business rules."

More OpenText ALM Octane Pros →

"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."

More PractiTest Pros →

Cons
"The cluster architecture that we implemented was server to server communication: Octane application to Elasticsearch and Elasticsearch to another Elasticsearch service. Recently, we found this is a security gap. The Octane application is interacting with Elasticsearch server, but that was missing from the requirements and prerequisites in the setup. The Micro Focus team has not given advice on how to implement authentication-based communication between Octane to Elasticsearch, and we found it as a gap later, then our security team asked us to fix that gap. So, there was a lot of time spent on rework.""We've only had a few stability issues. Generally, we have issues following any deployment they do, so if they do a deployment on a Sunday, then we may have a couple of issues on a Monday or Tuesday.""The Requirements Module could be better, to build up a better requirements process. There's a huge improvement from ALM.NET to Octane, but it's still not really facilitating all the needs of the product owners, to set up their requirements in Octane.""Though Micro Focus ALM Octane doesn't have much of a bug, it lacks integration with some solutions. For example, my company has fairly new software, but it can't be integrated with Micro Focus ALM Octane, so integration with other software, particularly with less popular software, could be improved. Micro Focus ALM Octane also requires a lot of resources during its setup, and I find this another area for improvement. An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the ability to customize the interface, especially when doing a manual test.""The solution should improve by adding scrum board-like functionality.""The reporting needs to be improved and allow for customization. I want to build my own widgets, but I don't want to use the ones already in the system. I want to build mine from scratch.""Development of extensions or connections to GitHub actions could be better. Better integration with Azure DevOps would also help.""Octane, from an administration perspective, is very limited. The application is improving with each release but what is missing is the ability to manage users and workspaces. I would also like "usable" reporting for more than a few workspaces. Also still missing is the ability to copy a workspace or get data in or out, except for limited REST calls."

More OpenText ALM Octane Cons →

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."

More PractiTest Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Pricing is the weakest point. It is expensive, but the tool has plenty of features. The main problem we have is that the pricing is very high compared to some other solutions."
  • "It will be as expensive as ALM.NET, if not more expensive. But here's a good tip: If you have ALM.NET, you are able to share your licenses from ALM.NET to Octane. You just have to define a dedicated number of licenses on ALM.NET and then you can share them with ALM Octane, with some configuration effort. This is something that you have to take into account, that there is a possibility of such license sharing that could decrease your costs. Compared to open-source tools, the price the ALM Octane is definitely higher, in terms of the licensing cost."
  • "It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time."
  • "It's expensive. HPE products, and now Micro Focus, have always been expensive. The license is not cheap, and it will always be a challenge, particularly for small organizations like ours."
  • "For what it does, it's very reasonably priced. I like the licensing model as well, because it's very flexible. You can scale licenses up and down for short periods of time."
  • "In terms of pricing, it's comparable to what we had previously. It's not priced at the higher end of the scale by any means. It's priced nicely, in the middle of the market. For what you're getting, it's a very good tool."
  • "Going forward, I think we will want to explore adding more licenses."
  • "The solution has reduced our testing costs."
  • More OpenText ALM Octane Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
  • More PractiTest Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Hi Netanya Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the… more »
    Top Answer:The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
    Top Answer:The product is highly priced compared to other tools. However, it offers substantial value. There is a distinction between OEM pricing and the final pricing for customers. They could understand the… more »
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    Views
    8,146
    Comparisons
    4,128
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    534
    Rating
    8.0
    Views
    257
    Comparisons
    193
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
    Learn More
    Overview

    OpenText ALM Octane helps organizations implement a “quality everywhere” approach and improve Agile and DevOps development and testing processes to improve the flow of work across the software delivery value stream. You can tightly align quality efforts from development to release, employ a broad range of tests anchored by automation, and continuously monitor and improve for increased throughput. OpenText fosters an open approach so that quality is visible, traceable, and continuously improved. By synchronizing quality and testing with Agile and DevOps processes, risks are mitigated early in the software delivery value stream – speeding the way for faster delivery and improved customer satisfaction.

    ALM Octane facilitates a tailored and scalable approach for large enterprises. You can deploy your way and minimize infrastructure needs with deployment options spanning on-premises, SaaS, and public cloud (Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure Marketplaces). Similarly, various licensing options can tailor the features to meet specific needs with support for thousands of concurrent users in geographically disperse locations.

    Manage your QA and Testing process, controlling your testing tasks while getting complete visibility into your results, and most importantly releasing your products in a professional way

    Professional end to end QA management for your manual and automation testing. 
    • Create your manual tests and organize them based on cycles, sprints, etc.
    • Seamlessly integrate your manual testing with your automation and CI processes.
    • Reuse tests and correlate results across different releases and products.
    • Release your products with confidence and control.


    Sample Customers
    Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
    Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider27%
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Transportation Company19%
    Consumer Goods Company4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company15%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise3%
    Large Enterprise79%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise8%
    Large Enterprise79%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise57%
    Large Enterprise14%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise68%
    Buyer's Guide
    Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: March 2024.
    768,246 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 38 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 20th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM Octane writes "Reporting engine, widgets, and dashboards are a huge plus, and powerful REST interface means we can interact with other tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Rally Software and GitLab, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps.

    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.