We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Workflow Management and OpenText ALM Octane based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, GitLab, Atlassian and others in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools."Work distribution among team members and accountability for completion with a clearer picture."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"Agile templates give us a standard methodology for every Agile project. Also, the ability to create our own object types and linkages to features/epics allows us to enhance the verification of feature readiness."
"We can track the status of test cases (passed or saved) in a single view. Based on releases and other attributes, we generate various reports and extract metrics from the data."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ability to manage test scenarios, test results, and test automation, which are its primary functionalities."
"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."
"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."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Backlog management is the most valuable feature. This was a capability that was missing or difficult to achieve in ALM Quality Center."
"The feature I found most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its ability to integrate with the CI/CD stack."
"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."
"We have encountered issues with stability. We have seen where the entire system kind of goes for a toss when certain people use certain types of queries, which are very costly. Then the system kind of slows down a bit, and we have to monitor it."
"The solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
"The biggest problem with ALM Octane is that it's very complex, so it's difficult to use and scale."
"They don't support all IDEs yet. We have Visual Studio code, which is not supported, and loved by our developers. This integration is missing. We also had to do our own in-house integration with the Confluence. That is also something that they could add."
"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 are some challenges when we want to integrate the tool with other products, and it takes time for a team to figure out how to do it."
"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."
"Technical support can be slow."
"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."
"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."
More IBM Engineering Workflow Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Workflow Management is ranked 10th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 14 reviews while OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 7th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 38 reviews. IBM Engineering Workflow Management is rated 6.8, while OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Workflow Management writes "Offers good traceability elements but UI needs improvement ". On the other hand, 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". IBM Engineering Workflow Management is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Codebeamer, GitLab and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Rally Software and GitLab.
See our list of best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Agile Planning Tools 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.