Most Helpful Review
Use IBM Rational Quality Manager? Share your opinion.
Helps in streamlining our testing process because everyone is using the same standards and capabilities
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"It's easy to create defects and easy to sync them up with a developer. Immediately, once created, it will trigger an email to the developer and we'll start a conversation with the developer regarding the requirements that have not been matched."
"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."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"The version of Micro Focus ALM that we use only works through Internet Explorer (IE). We have to communicate to everyone that they can only use IE with the solution. This is a big limitation. We should be free to use any type of browser or operating system. We have customers and partners who are unable to log into the system and enter their defects because they work on a different operating system."
"ALM only works on Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on any other browser. In my opinion, Internet Explorer is generally a bit slower. I would like to see it work on Chrome or on other browsers."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"When it came to JIRA and Agile adoption, that was not really easy to do with ALM. I tried, but I was not able to do much on that... There is room for improvement in the way it connects to and handles Agile projects."
"Quality Center's ability to connect all the different projects to reflect status and progress is quite complicated. We may develop something because there are so many projects. Right now, I have to do something which Quality Center is really not designed for: over reporting. This is a very big problem right now. We may develop some controls, but it is problem at the moment. I love Quality Center for individual projects to work with it. However, if you have a lot of projects for Quality Manager to do cross reporting on many projects, then it's almost impossible. It takes a lot of time."
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."
"Compared to the market, the price is high."
"Pricing is managed by our headquarters. I am able to get from them for very cheap. The market price is horribly expensive."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."
"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important… more »
Top Answer: Clients often ask about monthly licensing fees, however, I'm not sure about how IBM actually charges. For example, I'm unsure as to if it's a yearly or a monthly fee. It's unclear from my end how the… more »
Top Answer: I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement. It might be because of the complexity. They introduce some entities before people learn how these… more »
Top Answer: We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone… more »
Top Answer: Compared to the market, the price is high. We just renewed our licenses, which took time to do. I think we have 30 concurrent licenses. The world is changing to open source code and free applications… more »
Top Answer: It takes time because it has a 360 view of all the processes when talking about test case, design, and defects. There are so many things to track. Therefore, if I try to inject Micro Focus ALM into a… more »
out of 32 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
out of 32 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Also Known As
|Rational Quality Manager||HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM|
|IBM Rational Quality Manager is a collaborative hub for business-driven software and systems quality across virtually any platform and type of testing. This software helps teams share information seamlessly, use automation to accelerate project schedules and report on metrics for informed release decisions. Rational Quality Manager helps quality assurance teams collaborate by sharing project information and status updates seamlessly so team members can synchronize teamwork throughout the lifecycle. It helps them automate by reducing labor-intensive activities to accelerate project schedules. In addition, it helps them govern by understanding and reporting on project metrics enabling accurate, reliable and timely release decisions.|
Micro Focus Application Lifecycle Management software (ALM), is a unified platform that helps teams prioritize, align and focus their project activities, provides actionable insight, and fosters the re-use of assets from requirements through development, testing, and readiness for delivery.
Built on best practices, an extensible architecture and centralized repository, Micro Focus ALM is one of the first unified, technology-agnostic application management systems available now; integrating out-of-the-box with over 30 open source and competitive industry products.
Micro Focus’s ALM suite provides flexible solutions and deployment options to meet your needs and scale with you as you grow.
Learn more about IBM Rational Quality Manager
Learn more about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center
|Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr||Specsavers, Cardinal Health, KMD, Turkcell|
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider19%
Financial Services Firm19%
Comms Service Provider13%
Computer Software Company39%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm7%
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools with 3 reviews while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 24 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Has good integration with the other professional tools but usability needs improvement ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center writes "Makes it easy to go back and execute the same test every time with automation". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with TestRail by Gurock, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise, TFS and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Octane, Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, TFS and Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.