Most Helpful Review
Researched Micro Focus ALM Octane but chose Micro Focus ALM Quality Center: We can check everything, know who is the sponsor for it, and make a test plan. Everything is very visible.
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus ALM Octane vs. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
406,070 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:
Octane creates a gentle approach to Agile-based projects.
The concept of Octane is to have the most information and the most important functions available with one or two clicks. This is a big point of savings, in time and money... The powerful widgets, the Dashboard module, the ability to drill down to the information you need and the ability to configure it to your needs, are big advantages.
The general capabilities of Octane, setting up rules instead of programming VBA scripts for controlling the workflow, and making life easier for the users with the template functionalities, are very big benefits.
The openness and the possibilities of the REST API, from an operations and maintenance perspective, are a big plus.
We are seeing some real improvements in the way we do things. We are becoming more agile in the way we do it because of that and in a way that stories are managed. Stories are given lifecycles as opposed to just being entities within a tool.
The integration points are very good. Octane gives us a window not only into our manual testing, but also our automation testing and our performance testing. We can see all results from all three streams of testing in one place.
It's brought our entire team into a single tool. We're all looking at the same real-time data. Our project management office has been able to set up dashboards for individual teams, and do comparisons by teams, of integration, and cross-team integration, burn-up, burn-down, and cumulative flow...
The way testing is closely tied into the product Backlog has made it more intuitive, or easier to manage the relationship between building out an application and testing it. In other tools, that is more segregated. The way it's designed in Octane, people have said it makes more sense to them, and that it's easier for them to understand their data and to maintain and test their solutions.
Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs
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.
From reporting to team management, everything is better now.
The AI and functionality interface are useful.
It has a good response time.
The ability to integrate this solution with other applications is helpful. If there is automation, it comes with improved quality and speed.
This solution is open and very easy to integrate. The interface is good too.
It provides visibility on release status and readiness.
Improvements could be made by way of additional integrations across the lifecycle.
An example of one of the features we have requested is inheriting information from a test suite into a suite run and into a menu run, so the user does not have to add that information, update it manually.
We've only had a few stability issues. Generally, we have issues following any deployment they do, so if they do a deployment on a Sunday, then we may have a couple of issues on a Monday or Tuesday.
There's a trend in our requests to have the ability to export data, en masse, out of Octane. There are capabilities within Octane to export data, but there are specifics around test suites and requirements and relations, as well as certain attributes, that we would like to be able to export easily out of Octane and into a database or Excel.
We have some requests to beef up the manual testing abilities and the ability to report on testing progress. All the basics are there, but there's an issue of maintainability. For example... once you plan a test and it creates a run, more particularly a suite run, you can't edit the suite run afterward... That that is not realistic with how people work. Mistakes are made and people are humans and we change our minds about things. So the tool needs to allow for a bit more flexibility in that testing area, as well as some better widgets to report on progress.
When I manage projects that are being created in ALM, I have a standard template, but I don't have a template for them in Octane. I literally have to create the project from the ground up every time, which for an administrator, is a nightmare solution
The Requirements Module could be better, to build up a better requirements process. There's a huge improvement from ALM.NET to Octane, but it's still not really facilitating all the needs of the product owners, to set up their requirements in Octane.
Because JIRA is a leading tool for both development and requirements management - everybody is using JIRA - I'm pretty there will be a use case where people are trying to connect between ALM Octane and JIRA. The back-end configuration of the synchronization with JIRA could be simplified. The architecture is really complicated. We required a lot of machines to build the cluster and the configuration was not really clearly described within the documentation. This may have something to do with the fact that the software is pretty new.
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.
We would like to have support for agile development.
ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach.
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.
There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic.
It needs Pure-FTPd WebUI and single sign-on.
The QA needs improvement.
Pricing and Cost Advice
For what it does, it's very reasonably priced. I like the licensing model as well, because it's very flexible. You can scale licenses up and down for short periods of time.
In terms of pricing, it's comparable to what we had previously. It's not priced at the higher end of the scale by any means. It's priced nicely, in the middle of the market. For what you're getting, it's a very good tool.
It's expensive. HPE products, and now Micro Focus, have always been expensive. The license is not cheap, and it will always be a challenge, particularly for small organizations like ours.
It's pretty pricey, one of the most expensive ones on the market... The value depends on if you use all the features that it has. It comes with a lot of features. The difference between the license structure of ALM and Octane versus JIRA, is that you get everything with ALM and Octane... For JIRA, you buy the pieces one piece at a time.
It will be as expensive as ALM.NET, if not more expensive. But here's a good tip: If you have ALM.NET, you are able to share your licenses from ALM.NET to Octane. You just have to define a dedicated number of licenses on ALM.NET and then you can share them with ALM Octane, with some configuration effort. This is something that you have to take into account, that there is a possibility of such license sharing that could decrease your costs. Compared to open-source tools, the price the ALM Octane is definitely higher, in terms of the licensing cost.
Pricing is the weakest point. It is expensive, but the tool has plenty of features. The main problem we have is that the pricing is very high compared to some other solutions.
Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive.
We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us.
It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution.
Answers from the Community
out of 35 in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Average Words per Review
out of 35 in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Average Words per Review
Compared 49% of the time.
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
|Micro Focus Octane||HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM|
|Micro Focus||Micro Focus|
|In support of the bimodal nature of many customers today, Micro Focus has expanded the ALM experience by introducing ALM Octane, as a separate platform that is tuned and designed for high-velocity, Lean and Agile teams. ALM Octane is an included part of the ALM product, and integrates with both Micro Focus Agile Manager and the traditional Micro Focus ALM.NET platform to allow teams to easily share assets and report across projects.|
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 Micro Focus ALM Octane
Learn more about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center
Information Not Available
|Specsavers, Cardinal Health, KMD, Turkcell|
Financial Services Firm30%
Comms Service Provider10%
Software R&D Company47%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm20%
Comms Service Provider14%
Software R&D Company41%
Comms Service Provider9%
Financial Services Firm7%