We performed a comparison between Jira 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 most valuable feature of Jira is the project package for development."
"Has a good dashboard with good tracking features."
"Jira has a good reporting system. It also has an API, so we can do all sorts of reporting."
"We have the best community to support any problems that we have."
"I was able to do real-time reports myself without having to wait for data import."
"Provides good output and is user-friendly."
"I like seeing which tickets are open and what our response rate is. They have a lot of good metrics in their system to see what's going on."
"Jira's collaborative features, such as comments, notifications, and real-time updates, facilitate better communication."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"It's user friendly, scalable, and very stable and strong. It's cooperative, meaning that I can assess the test to check it and follow the flow of defects, and the developers and the business can use this tool to follow the test process."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"As a stand-alone test management tool, it's a good tool."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"It is a bit harder for management or the business partners. I used to search the Atlassian Community online for some troubleshooting issues and I think there were some issues that seemed to not be a big problem for other similar applications, like Microsoft Teams, that were not considered by Jira."
"Because I am a developer, I would like integration with Git Source Code Management so that for tickets, we can reference the code where the change has happened and where the issue is. This feature might be there, and I probably haven't discovered it."
"In general, although we use JIRA, we never really learned how to use it properly. The learning curve of the solution is high. It has a lot of power, and yet we don't understand its capabilities."
"The help desk and services management features are in need of improvement."
"The part when it comes to the testing area is a bit hard to handle. The screen is too small, you can't really read what you're typing in, and it's only for the testing area. It looks like they have pressed in more than the UI system could handle to display it properly."
"An area for improvement in Jira is that it's not designed for test management. To use it for test management, you need an add-on or several add-ons, e.g. Xray or Zephyr."
"The performance is not so good sometimes. I know that fully depends on the implementation and the IT environment of Jira or the version of Jira installed. The performance is sometimes not so good. I would like to have a better response time from the Jira server. And it fully depends on the administration side of the Jira."
"Although it covers the overall requirements and measurements, it'll help if they had their own test execution feature."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"The performance could be faster."
"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."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"It is not a scalable solution."
"Certain features are lousy. Those features can drag the whole server down. There are times that the complex SQL queries are not easy to do within this solution."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews. Jira is rated 8.0, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Jira writes "Stable with good documentation and needs very little maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "It is a stable solution, and customer service is its most valuable feature". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Polarion ALM and Digital.ai Agility, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis Tosca. See our Jira 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.
Micro Focus ALM is a complete Test Management tool that can cover Requirements management, Defects management, Test Plan, Test Execution Suites as well as automation test executions with MF UFT (former HP QC). If you have a testing heavy project then MF ALM covers all the testing expectations well.
However, in an integrated environment with development, releases, and testing, JIRA can offer a better experience for JIRA issues (for requirements and incidents/defects), add-on for testing from JIRA marketplace (e.g. X-Ray) and offers a better fitment for DevOps. Developers and testers can work with the same tool for defects. requirements i.e. JIRA and manage testing with JIRA add-ons for Test Management.
I don't know enough about Micro Focus ALM but based from what I have seen it does provide a lot more than JIRA. I have worked with Azure DevOps and know that it can also provide more than JIRA. AZURE DevOps seems to be similar in comparison with Micro Focus ALM. So I would say if it was between JIRA and Micro Focus, then I will choose the latter.