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."The solution is customizable."
"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 cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."
"The integration with Git works well."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete."
"I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten."
"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."
"The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed."
"The AI and functionality interface are useful."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The stability is very good."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"ALM Quality Center's best features are the test lab, requirement tab, and report dashboard."
"The GUI is a little bit outdated."
"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."
"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."
"The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."
"I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."
"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."
"In the next release, we expect a traceability metrics configuration where we can configure the user stories. We also expect them to improve or simplify the query process."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"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."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
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.