We performed a comparison between PTC Integrity and Rally Software 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 solution is flexible in terms of customization. You can bend and reformat it in many ways. You can also customize the APIs and public functions."
"It's a good tool to manage software versions, update the status, and manage tasks."
"I personally like PTC Integrity because it provides everything within the software. You can store and access your data and perform various tasks. Compared to other products, I find it user-friendly, which can sometimes feel complex. I think PTC Integrity is user-friendly, making it nice to use. The tool is easier to learn."
"I have found that previously, the OEM sector was managing everything, possibly manually. However, with the introduction of the product, it has become much easier for customers to handle their products. Previously, customers were using different software to manage their products. However, PTC Integrity offers a solution for requirements management, test management, and even development to support live ticket management. So instead of using multiple software tools, we can use it for all these purposes."
"Complete traceability as per process requirements."
"The tool is quite structured and has a good command set."
"We have been using it because it gives certain abilities in the automotive industry, such as auditing or keeping track of information."
"The most valuable feature is traceability starting from the requirements until the end of a project."
"We can work better and at a higher quality, than we were able to before."
"My teams uses it for their daily agile management. They describe their user stories and track the progress of their projects."
"Having that view into features and roadmap from product to delivery teams, and where they are going, then execute on."
"Agile Central allows us to log one hundred percent of the work we do and it allows for no hidden work, so teams can't go under the radar with what they're working on."
"It helps with getting the alignment between strategy and execution for the product teams, all the way down to the delivery teams."
"CA Agile Central provides visibility into how teams are meeting business objectives."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the Kanban board."
"It helps me evaluate teams' historical performance using velocity charts."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"The web version does not have all the functionalities of the non-web version. Administration and adding/removing fields, etc. cannot be done on the web version. People want solutions that are compatible with Android. I also want to have a version by which I can bulk edit all the fields."
"We are unhappy because everything that we needed required customization and this is not a plug-and-play type of solution at all."
"It's not easy to plan on this solution and it's not user-friendly. The interface should be more like a web interface. It's not easy to use."
"It's not so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer."
"From my experience over the years, I believe there might be room for improvement in PTC Integrity. While it's already a good product, it tends to be slower than other software. When it becomes bulky, it slows down even more, sometimes leading to crashes or hangs that require restarting the computer before being able to use PTC Integrity again. This has been my experience multiple times."
"To be honest, the third controller system is kind of old. There are lots of transactional changes that have not been implemented in PTC. If you have a larger project, for example, whenever you give bits and need to change 10,000 files you can just commit them. But here the work style is a little more file based, so you'll have to take care of almost all the files individually. It's not a single commit like you do here, but rather you have to allocate time for each component or file that you want to check in or commit. That's a very big issue."
"The tool's web-based UI needs improvement. Some functionalities don't work yet, and querying items is slow. Also, it's not in the cloud yet. I don't know if they'll do it in the future because they already have core agreements with customers. If they offer these functionalities, customers will likely buy their product."
"The stronger CA can get on dependency mapping the better. That's the biggest hiccup. As you're setting up your features, they should make it easier to flag the dependencies, either across features or across projects. Then you're more set up for success."
"I'd like the ability to customize reports without having to incur Professional Services, or having to write my own code GitHub and then implement that as a custom report. That's untenable. It's not sustainable."
"Rally Software is highly complex, and it takes some effort to get everything tied together. But once you do, it's a satisfying experience, and the result looks beautiful. Azure, ServiceNow, and Jira do not have all the features that Rally Software provides in one place, making it an exceptional tool for project management."
"In Rally Software, the connection with GitLab and GitHub needs improvement."
"What I don't like about it is that it is really hard to find old work to reference information and use the reporting section of the application in terms of trying to analyze trends. If I am trying to find out which interfaces took this long and I want to compare and measure improvement from one quarter to another quarter, the reporting mechanism within Rally is very troublesome. They have an Excel plugin that you're supposed to use, but you literally have to pull the raw data out before you can do the analysis. You can't do it within Rally, and if you can, it is a secret, and I don't know how to do it. It should have better, easier, and user-friendly reporting without having to use the Excel add-in. It is very clunky. There is a lot of data in there, but it is not organized in such a way that makes it intuitive. You really have to kind of look for where do you put your documentation or dates. Some customization is available, but it is not plug-and-play like Jira. When I switched from TFS to Jira, I just went and started using Jira, whereas with Rally, you kind of have to really get in and figure out what you need to do before you set stuff up, or you're going to get yourself stuck. You can just start using Jira and be successful."
"CA Agile Central does not have a workflow tool included."
"It could improve by being self-organizing: user stories, different hierarchies, and different perspectives. Not just as a single hierarchical structure, but something that can be multidimensional."
"The product needs to have more integration capabilities."
PTC Integrity is ranked 12th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 12 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. PTC Integrity is rated 7.4, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of PTC Integrity writes "Helps to create tasks, change requests and documentation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "A solution that enables users to accurately estimate the time required for building large software projects". PTC Integrity is most compared with Codebeamer, Polarion ALM, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, TFS, Jira Align and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our PTC Integrity vs. Rally Software 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.
