We performed a comparison between OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Rally Software 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."Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"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."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"The Defect feature. In one view you can see all your defects and you can push them into the different releases."
"CA Agile Central provides visibility into how teams are meeting business objectives."
"I was able to create epics for our budgeting concerns and it helped me link everything together."
"We use the roadmap features, and we're getting better at using dates to use the roadmap so that we can see if we're on target for work."
"Helps me determine how fast I can launch, go to production."
"It scales very well. It improves in technology constantly and gets up to speed with the latest and greatest."
"Ease of use - I don't even know when a new release is coming and I don't need to because it's so easy to use what's new."
"It helps with getting the alignment between strategy and execution for the product teams, all the way down to the delivery teams."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"I would rate it a 10 if it had the template functionality on the web side, had better interfaces between other applications, so that we didn't have dual data entry or have to set up our own migrations."
"The integration could be improved because with Agile technology you are working more quickly than with a top-down methodology."
"Cross project reporting is limited to similar database schemas"
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"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."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"It requires better scalability for the implementation of the whole suite. We do not use it in that fashion, and visibility is sometimes a problem."
"More importantly, we are seeing internal challenges from Atlassian because of their highly integrated suite that enables further automation and centralization of activities that are also highly necessary – messaging notifications cued off builds, collaboration on Solution Architecture Documentation, etc."
"There's a lot of support for Scrum and Agile, but it needs something for the Kanban side."
"I think there needs to be some simplification. The team-level side can be challenging and complicated."
"CA Agile Central does not have a workflow tool included."
"We'd like better dashboards to make visibility better."
"A lot of the features that we would be looking to add, I am learning may not be within Agile Central, but part of another CA tool set."
"I would like to see more Kanban support. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have the features or the layouts that the teams really need to be able to execute their tasks. It almost tries to force you into more of a Scrum style."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "A solution that enables users to accurately estimate the time required for building large software projects". OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, TFS, Jira Align and Digital.ai Agility. See our OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs. Rally Software 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.
