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."
"The tool is quite structured and has a good command set."
"Complete traceability as per process requirements."
"We found the requirement management and the version control features to be the most useful for our client."
"It's a good tool to manage software versions, update the status, and manage tasks."
"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."
"PTC Integrity has good stability."
"It's very user-friendly."
"The effect of these kind of tools drives the way you organize things. It helps you shape the way you flow."
"The product has excellent customizable reports."
"Helps me plan an estimate of how soon or how far out we'll be able to deliver something."
"It is very stable. It has been on the market a long time."
"The metrics - collecting metrics. It's because we've used several other tools in the past, and they don't give you a full indication of how well your teams are performing, at a portfolio level, at a product level, and at the team level."
"Gives me a dashboard where I can see what things are not being worked on, what things are blocked."
"Helps me determine how fast I can launch, go to production."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"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 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."
"There are not enough reports. People would like to see something similar to what is available in JIRA."
"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."
"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 so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer."
"For complex businesses, the internal templates could have more flexibility and compatibility."
"A lot of the features that we would be looking to add, I am learning may not be within Agile Central, but part of another CA tool set."
"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."
"More customization capabilities would be helpful. Providing a little bit more structure around how the system should be set up in terms of the hierarchy structure might be helpful as well."
"One problem I see is that if there is a dependent user story - for example, if my team is working on one thing and there is a dependent user story from another team - we can have a dependency created but we don't know if there is a change of status from the other team. That is something which is very important for Agile Central to look into so that if the other team makes any changes we will be notified as well."
"I think there is a missing link with the development activity. Some developers are pushing in new versions of the code, but you cannot make the link from the user story to a specific application version."
"There's a lot of support for Scrum and Agile, but it needs something for the Kanban side."
"It's a bit cumbersome to manage the Project Picker. As we sunset teams or projects close out - but we still have test cases tied to those teams or projects that are being used in other spaces - we have this monstrous list in the Project Picker that becomes really difficult to manage and find, and we can't clean that up ourselves. It would be nice if it was easier to do that and not lose your history."
"In terms of improvement, perhaps some more metrics. If they could add some additional, that would be cool."
PTC Integrity is ranked 12th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 2 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 7 reviews. PTC Integrity is rated 7.0, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of PTC Integrity writes "A flexible tool which you can bend and reformat in many ways ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "Good discussion and note-taking capabilities but hard to track the changes". 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 Asana. 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.