We performed a comparison between IBM Rational ALM and OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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.
"It's easy to use."
"At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online."
"We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space."
"The solution is customizable."
"The word emulation and importing is good."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting of the CPU usage on the dashboard."
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."
"The planning feature is rich with Scrum concepts: Sprint, Sprint retrospective, the rules in the Scrum framework."
"This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"It has a good response time."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is its support for many automation technologies."
"Some improvements to the user interface (UI) would be helpful, such as exposing more services to make it easier to customize to the needs of each customer."
"The product must be more user-friendly."
"The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."
"The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."
"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"One of the complaints from users is that they have to click buttons too many times for just a simple task. Changing this would lead to a better user experience."
"I would like to see better reporting features. The out-of-box reporting is - I don't want to say limited - but the focus is on the Scrum and Sprint reports. We need more reporting features regarding the history of the work, tracking it more deeply."
"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"The UI is very dated. Most applications these days have a light UI that can be accessed by pretty much any browser; QC still uses a UI which has a look almost the same for the past 20 years."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"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."
"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational ALM is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational ALM writes "A complex deployment that is not stable, but is cloud-based". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Polarion ALM and PTC Integrity, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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.
