We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"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."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"I personally found the defect tracking feature very useful in my ongoing project."
"You can do your development from start to finish: starting with the requirements, ending with defects, and testing in-between."
"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."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center could improve its marketing. For example, Tricentis is much better at letting the market know about new solutions and updates. The migration of the tool could improve, but it can be difficult."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"We would like to have support for agile development."
"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."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". 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 Quality Manager is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Jama Connect. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText 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.