Compare Micro Focus ALM Octane vs. codeBeamer ALM

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus ALM Octane vs. codeBeamer ALM and other solutions. Updated: September 2020.
441,672 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing.""Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers.""You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily.""The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."

More codeBeamer ALM Pros »

"Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center.""We looked at all the market-leading tools, but we did not find anything quite as comprehensive as ALM Octane. When I say comprehensive, it's not just a single tool for Agile planning, backlog management release, sprint planning, etc., but it also has a built-in, comprehensive quality management module. It also has pipelines where we can hook up with our DevOps ecosystem/toolchain.""A valuable feature is the pipeline, so that we can now connect to Jenkins and then have all the results from testing, from external, in the tool, so that we can see the whole approach from there. Also, We can work with labels so we have better filtering solutions than in ALM. And it's much smarter and leaner to use than ALM.""With an Octane project, we have our automation, our requirements, our tests, our pipeline into build-and-deploy, and the ability to identify problem areas. It makes things quicker because it's more along the lines of an automated process.""It's brought our entire team into a single tool. We're all looking at the same real-time data. Our project management office has been able to set up dashboards for individual teams, and do comparisons by teams, of integration, and cross-team integration, burn-up, burn-down, and cumulative flow...""The way testing is closely tied into the product Backlog has made it more intuitive, or easier to manage the relationship between building out an application and testing it. In other tools, that is more segregated. The way it's designed in Octane, people have said it makes more sense to them, and that it's easier for them to understand their data and to maintain and test their solutions.""People really how easy it is to customize. In some previous tools, that has been very limited, or you had to know how to write code to do some of the customizations, or it was very confusing. Going back to the user interface, they've made the customization of the tool, the workspace settings, very easy for people to figure out and use.""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."

More Micro Focus ALM Octane Pros »

Cons
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets.""Usability needs to be improved.""I would like to see more, easily trackable reports.""The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."

More codeBeamer ALM Cons »

"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.""There is an opportunity for them to do a little more with the dashboarding. We still feel that HPE Quality Center/HPE ALM reporting is very powerful. We talked with R&D, and there are some things on their roadmap, but at the same time, their strategy is to connect Octane with visualization tools such as Power BI.""Also, while there is a Requirements Module in Octane, it is very plain. It's okay to have some requirements described there, but it's not really following the whole BDD approach. I would like to have more features for requirements in there.""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.""Because JIRA is a leading tool for both development and requirements management - everybody is using JIRA - I'm pretty there will be a use case where people are trying to connect between ALM Octane and JIRA. The back-end configuration of the synchronization with JIRA could be simplified. The architecture is really complicated. We required a lot of machines to build the cluster and the configuration was not really clearly described within the documentation. This may have something to do with the fact that the software is pretty new.""When I manage projects that are being created in ALM, I have a standard template, but I don't have a template for them in Octane. I literally have to create the project from the ground up every time, which for an administrator, is a nightmare solution""There's a trend in our requests to have the ability to export data, en masse, out of Octane. There are capabilities within Octane to export data, but there are specifics around test suites and requirements and relations, as well as certain attributes, that we would like to be able to export easily out of Octane and into a database or Excel.""We have some requests to beef up the manual testing abilities and the ability to report on testing progress. All the basics are there, but there's an issue of maintainability. For example... once you plan a test and it creates a run, more particularly a suite run, you can't edit the suite run afterward... That that is not realistic with how people work. Mistakes are made and people are humans and we change our minds about things. So the tool needs to allow for a bit more flexibility in that testing area, as well as some better widgets to report on progress."

More Micro Focus ALM Octane Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"Pricing is good when compared to similar ALM solutions.""It is reasonably priced and in accordance with the industry standards."

More codeBeamer ALM Pricing and Cost Advice »

"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."

More Micro Focus ALM Octane Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
441,672 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers.
Top Answer: Usability needs to be improved.
Top Answer: I use this solution for requirement management, task tracking, bug tracking, and change tracking.
Top Answer: Azure DevOps is well suited if you have a big team that is collaborating their codes and need to have devops pipeline for all build and release work. Also since this tool provides bug management… more »
Ranking
Views
1,894
Comparisons
1,385
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
375
Avg. Rating
7.0
Views
16,496
Comparisons
9,737
Reviews
12
Average Words per Review
1,946
Avg. Rating
8.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 0% of the time.
Also Known As
Micro Focus Octane
Learn
Intland Software
Micro Focus
Overview

codeBeamer ALM is a market-leading Application Lifecycle Management platform. It is holistically integrated, and is packed with features that help you develop better products faster. Scale, monitor, control, and report on your entire development lifecycle conveniently, and comply with safety-critical regulations. Cut development time and costs.

In support of the bimodal nature of many customers today, Micro Focus has expanded the ALM experience by introducing ALM Octane, as a separate platform that is tuned and designed for high-velocity, Lean and Agile teams. ALM Octane is an included part of the ALM product, and integrates with both Micro Focus Agile Manager and the traditional Micro Focus ALM.NET platform to allow teams to easily share assets and report across projects.

Offer
Learn more about codeBeamer ALM
Learn more about Micro Focus ALM Octane
Sample Customers
Medtronic, Align Technology, Daimler, Samsung, Harman, DassaultOrange Labs, Airbus, Haufe Group
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company28%
Comms Service Provider18%
Manufacturing Company17%
Retailer6%
REVIEWERS
Transportation Company36%
Financial Services Firm27%
Comms Service Provider9%
Consumer Goods Company9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company46%
Comms Service Provider11%
Government8%
Financial Services Firm5%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Large Enterprise100%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business1%
Large Enterprise99%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus ALM Octane vs. codeBeamer ALM and other solutions. Updated: September 2020.
441,672 professionals have used our research since 2012.
codeBeamer ALM is ranked 15th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 4 reviews while Micro Focus ALM Octane is ranked 4th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 11 reviews. codeBeamer ALM is rated 7.0, while Micro Focus ALM Octane is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of codeBeamer ALM writes "Good metrics and lifecycle connectivity, but better setup documentation and reporting is needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Octane writes "Saves time by making the most important information and functions available with one or two clicks". codeBeamer ALM is most compared with Jira, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jama Connect and IBM Engineering Workflow Management, whereas Micro Focus ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Rally Software and GitLab. See our Micro Focus ALM Octane vs. codeBeamer ALM 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.