I don’t have any specific information about ROI.

There’s such a large investment in scripts built for these. To recreate that content in other products would be a disadvantage economically to pursue once you have the legacy products. It would be very expensive to get a system integrated to do so.

It is hard to say. We don't measure it, but we probably have seen an ROI.

It's a bit early on to see improvements in times and deliveries. Our entire company has only been using the product since December of last year, so we don't have enough trend data.

We will see ROI once we have the automation suite connected up to Octane. We will then have the ability to report on automated testing versus manual testing and the ability to see those tests automatically parsing with the tool. When Octane shows us when our CI process fails and shows us what the story that failed, we will have return on investment. Because we will have not the overhead of having to do an investigation of having to find out what the change was, because Octane will tell us all of that information. 

The biggest ROI, compared to any other tool out there, looks like it will be the predictive analytics. I don't have it fully implemented, but from the demos I've seen, it is pretty amazing. Getting that fully set up and implemented is, in my opinion, a game-changer. It could make the tool top of the market. 

You have to take into account all the costs. Right now, we are using ALM.NET. If we decide to go to ALM Octane we will have migration costs, we will have costs for integrating other tools. If we stay with ALM.NET or go for open-source tools, we have to evaluate the same cost factors.

My guess is, if we go to ALM Octane, and considering all the features that ALM Octane provides, with the open architecture, that would mean we don't have to buy more plugins. We could gain some financial advantage from implementing ALM Octane.

The testing team has said that can work more efficiently and that the setup of the testing at the beginning of the release is faster.

The only quantifiable ROI is the license cost savings converting from VersionOne and JIRA. With about 200 users for each platform, the ROI calculations are based on what was paid for the previous solutions.

My clients have seen a return on investment. I can't quantify it for you, but they believe that because it is cohesive and can be used across the enterprise in a simplified manner, it reduces the total cost of ownership, which might be translated into a return on investment.

Octane has reduced manual testing time in our organization.

The solution has reduced our testing costs.

It has reduced integration costs by building a streamlined application delivery pipeline connecting to all IDE, CI, and SCCM tools.

The solution has helped us to produce releases faster. 

Our team is saving time on testing by using Octane. Something that would take five days to do, now it takes one day.

The solution has helped us to produce releases 40 percent faster. 

We have had some strong discussions in regards to JIRA, to use JIRA plug-ins and to get rid of the overall HPE/Micro Focus way, because of the money. We had some discussions about whether we could make it with open-source tools. But at the end of the day, we figured out that they're really not good, full test-management tools. The overall approach, with everything in one place in Octane, for the money, is more valuable.

Since we're not finished with the license discussions, I can't tell you the end result or numbers and figures but, in the end, it's more or less equal, from the money point of view: if you're using open-source with more consulting or if you use a tool like Octane, which costs some money, but you don't have a lot of work in terms of implementing and consulting, etc.

I compare it, still, with ALM QC, and there's definitely a return on investment on it. I see this leveraging more in the future.

We are currently in something of an "in-between" situation because we are still using the old tool and moving to the new one. We have a transition period in which we need to maintain both tools at the same time. It's a difficult period with more work because we have two tools instead of one. We need time to move from the old to the new one. We will stop Quality Center, the old tool, in one year. At that point, things will be much easier and much more cost efficient than before, for several reasons.

First of all, Octane is automatable with APIs, so we have automated everything that we can for the users: project creation, user management, and the like. With everything automated via the APIs, we don't have to invest in people to support our users. That makes it cost-efficient.

Secondly, it's cost-efficient in terms of the platform. As I said, we use half the servers compared to what we needed for QC.

Also, a project in Octane can handle everything that is needed. We don't need to have two or three tools to handle different things.

It's also efficient because we have less training for users, and there is less expense for synchronizing data between one tool and another.

Putting all that together, it's really more efficient.

I don't think we've reached the point of ROI yet. For return on investment, we're looking at about 12 to 18 months before we start seeing that return. Our return will come when we automate more testing, when we show those results in Octane, and start making more use of the Octane dashboard. That's when we'll see a return on investment.

The benefits I've mentioned can be reflected as monetary benefits, which I would estimate at 35 percent annually.