IBM Rational ALM vs OpenText ALM Octane comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
1,578 views|1,153 comparisons
73% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
8,146 views|4,128 comparisons
94% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational ALM and OpenText ALM Octane 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.
To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane Report (Updated: March 2024).
768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful.""It's easy to use.""The integration with Git works well.""The solution is customizable.""The word emulation and importing is good.""I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten.""Everyone in a team can work on the same platform and share the same information.""The planning feature is rich with Scrum concepts: Sprint, Sprint retrospective, the rules in the Scrum framework."

More IBM Rational ALM Pros →

"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.""There are a lot of predefined reports. We can attach additional reports for users, like who worked on what defect and when, as well as what is the status of the release compared to the previous release. It is really endless. All the data is really linked together. Then, if all the data is linked together, there is an option to prepare reports out of it. We are very impressed with its reporting capabilities.""The filtering options are very good once you learn them. The document reports are also valuable. You can create reports in Word and PDF formats. That's very useful.""The solution natively supports Agile-Waterfall hybrid software development at an enterprise scale. This is very important to us. Because even though the company wishes to go Agile, we still have projects which follow a Waterfall methodology. In order for us to accommodate both, we needed some sort of hybrid system. Because if we are using a fully Agile system, then the reporting might not be correctly extracted.""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.""I like the fact that you can use it on top of Jira.""It’s easy to set up.""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."

More OpenText ALM Octane Pros →

Cons
"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible.""The stability of this solution can be improved.""The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate.""The reporting functionality needs to be improved.""The product must be more user-friendly.""The GUI is a little bit outdated.""The interconnectivity between packages is a major support problem and can be improved.""The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."

More IBM Rational ALM Cons →

"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.""We’d like to see Platform One/Iron Bank compliant containers.""It could use just some small improvements. I would like additional features, like planning features, user story mapping, or connection to collaboration tools.""The product's requirements management feature needs enhancement in terms of functionality.""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 limitation of Octane is that we can't do a release outside of the sprint. We can only plan the release in the sprint. With Agile and JIRA tools, we can plan the release outside the sprint and do a global release of all the projects from the sprint.""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.""I have yet to experience the CI/CD part of Micro Focus ALM Octane but as demonstrated by the team who is providing the services, I see that the CI/CD could improve. When we check in the code, for the code snippet that has been checked in by a particular user, you need to open a separate file. When comparing Micro Focus ALM Octane to Jira, they have a separate window in which you can click on the ID and the code is visible in the snippet. It's a two-step process in Micro Focus ALM Octane and it's a single-step process in Jira. It's essential for the developers to think about this difference."

More OpenText ALM Octane Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."
  • "We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."
  • "This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."
  • "IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."
  • "The solution is not cheap."
  • More IBM Rational ALM Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Pricing is the weakest point. It is expensive, but the tool has plenty of features. The main problem we have is that the pricing is very high compared to some other solutions."
  • "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."
  • "Going forward, I think we will want to explore adding more licenses."
  • "The solution has reduced our testing costs."
  • More OpenText 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.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:We have some special needs. The product does not support our needs perfectly. The GUI is a little bit outdated. There are not many diagrams that help us organize or plan the work for the team. The… more »
    Top Answer:We have three modules. The DOORS module is for requirements. RTC is for storage planning and workflow planning. We also use the module for quality. We use IBM Rational ALM as the main tool to plan… more »
    Top Answer:Hi Netanya Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below data may be relevant to you for identifying your needs and deciding on the… more »
    Top Answer:The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services.
    Top Answer:The product is highly priced compared to other tools. However, it offers substantial value. There is a distinction between OEM pricing and the final pricing for customers. They could understand the… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    1,578
    Comparisons
    1,153
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    396
    Rating
    7.4
    Views
    8,146
    Comparisons
    4,128
    Reviews
    12
    Average Words per Review
    534
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational ALM, MKS
    Micro Focus ALM Octane, Micro Focus Octane
    Learn More
    Overview
    Lifecycle management capabilities built on the open, unifying IBM Rational Jazz platform can help agile and traditional teams: see at-a-glance status, access better data for decisions, manage costs, reuse the most efficient processes across the organization, manage cloud, web, SOA and mobile application design and development. Teams can also gain real-time traceability, manage work across vendors, unify across a diverse set of lifecyle tools, and provide collaborative development for continuous delivery as part of the IBM DevOps solution.

    OpenText ALM Octane helps organizations implement a “quality everywhere” approach and improve Agile and DevOps development and testing processes to improve the flow of work across the software delivery value stream. You can tightly align quality efforts from development to release, employ a broad range of tests anchored by automation, and continuously monitor and improve for increased throughput. OpenText fosters an open approach so that quality is visible, traceable, and continuously improved. By synchronizing quality and testing with Agile and DevOps processes, risks are mitigated early in the software delivery value stream – speeding the way for faster delivery and improved customer satisfaction.

    ALM Octane facilitates a tailored and scalable approach for large enterprises. You can deploy your way and minimize infrastructure needs with deployment options spanning on-premises, SaaS, and public cloud (Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure Marketplaces). Similarly, various licensing options can tailor the features to meet specific needs with support for thousands of concurrent users in geographically disperse locations.

    Sample Customers
    Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst
    Orange, Airbus, Haufe Group, Kellogg's, Claro, Bon Secours, World Wide Technology
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company38%
    Manufacturing Company23%
    Comms Service Provider15%
    Government8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Manufacturing Company22%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Government8%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    REVIEWERS
    Comms Service Provider27%
    Financial Services Firm27%
    Transportation Company19%
    Consumer Goods Company4%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm28%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Government8%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise21%
    Large Enterprise58%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise76%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise3%
    Large Enterprise79%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise8%
    Large Enterprise79%
    Buyer's Guide
    IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane and other solutions. Updated: March 2024.
    768,857 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational ALM is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while OpenText ALM Octane is ranked 5th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 38 reviews. IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2, while OpenText ALM Octane is rated 8.2. 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 Octane writes "Reporting engine, widgets, and dashboards are a huge plus, and powerful REST interface means we can interact with other tools". IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Polarion ALM, whereas OpenText ALM Octane is most compared with Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Rally Software. See our IBM Rational ALM vs. OpenText ALM Octane 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.