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."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."
"Work distribution among team members and accountability for completion with a clearer picture."
"All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"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."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"The user experience is a lot better than any tool that I have used before. Overall, it is great. It has a smooth interface, which is very user-friendly. It makes it easier to work together and have more transparency and customization, which is very good."
"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."
"Micro Focus' technical support is good."
"The most useful feature of Micro Focus ALM Octane is the dashboards, they are easy to use."
"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."
"It is a very stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Octane works well with the Jira portfolio to track the project with two methods: Agile and Waterfall. We can track all the testing in Waterfall or Agile and synchronize it with Agile tools."
"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 solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"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."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"Globally, I don't see many major points of improvement. It's mostly plenty of little things, and it's weird to me that they are not in the product yet. They are really details, but they're annoying details... Today, in the tool, we've got plenty of assets we can handle, like requirements, user storage, defects, tasks and so on. And to all of those elements, we can add comments. We can add comments to any asset in Octane but not to tasks. It's just impossible to understand why it's not available for the tasks because it's available everywhere else. Similarly, for attachments, you can attach files absolutely everywhere except on automated runs, which is, again, awkward. I don't understand why on this element, in particular, you cannot do it. It's little touches like that."
"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."
"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."
"Currently, Micro Focus ALM Octane is considered an old-world tool in the industry and lacks the perception of being a new-age tool among its customers."
"Documentation is not clear."
"Technical support can be slow."
"It could use just some small improvements. I would like additional features, like planning features, user story mapping, or connection to collaboration tools."
"Security and security management, meaning the integration of the security, could be enhanced. We know about Fortify, but it would be better to have security features in the original Octane platform without the need for another solution or another application."
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.
