Compare IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. Silk Central

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use IBM Rational Quality Manager? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Microsoft, Tricentis and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2021.
456,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"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."

More IBM Rational Quality Manager Pros »

"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."

More Silk Central Pros »

Cons
"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."

More IBM Rational Quality Manager Cons »

"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."

More Silk Central Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."

More Silk Central Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
456,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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 »
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Ranking
14th
Views
1,431
Comparisons
828
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
450
Rating
7.7
10th
Views
1,232
Comparisons
660
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
1,007
Rating
8.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Also Known As
Rational Quality ManagerBorland Silk Central, Micro Focus Silk Central
Learn
IBM
Micro Focus
Overview
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.Silk Central is an open test management solution which unifies all test assets into one easy-to-use planning, tracking, reporting and execution hub. Silk Central enables you to gain control, collaboration and traceability across all areas of your software testing, whether your methodology is Agile, Traditional or hybrid. Silk Central provides integration of requirements, manual and automated tests, defect tools and your test execution, giving full traceability of the quality of your software testing regardless of role.
Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Quality Manager
Learn more about Silk Central
Sample Customers
Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, BarrAmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider19%
Manufacturing Company10%
Government6%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company25%
Financial Services Firm25%
Transportation Company25%
Manufacturing Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company31%
Financial Services Firm25%
Comms Service Provider11%
Government8%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise38%
Large Enterprise50%
REVIEWERS
Midsize Enterprise30%
Large Enterprise70%
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Microsoft, Tricentis and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2021.
456,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.

IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools with 3 reviews while Silk Central is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 1 review. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while Silk Central is rated 8.0. 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 Silk Central writes "A powerful platform and strong technical support help us to make the right decisions". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, TestRail by Gurock, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS, whereas Silk Central is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest and TFS.

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.