We performed a comparison between Atlassian ALM and IBM Rational ALM 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 is the Scrum board."
"This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."
"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"The solution is customizable."
"The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."
"One of the key advantages of IBM Rational ALM is its workflow capabilities, which enable seamless collaboration between development and production teams and ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the progress and readiness of the solution. Additionally, the solution is good for integration."
"The planning feature is rich with Scrum concepts: Sprint, Sprint retrospective, the rules in the Scrum framework."
"The tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."
"IBM Rational ALM is a very good tool. I like the management and traceability features and the test management tool. The latter is not linked with the stories and fixed management. It is really useful, and we can create test plans. We can also test some metrics related to QA."
"We have something called the GC (global configuration), which is a unique feature compared to any other competitor we have in the ALM space."
"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."
"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."
"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."
"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."
"I think nowadays people are getting into Jira and other tools. What is happening is, this solution is becoming more traditional, whereas Jira and other tools are more attractive for the new users to learn and start using because of the graphical interfaces."
"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"The product must be more user-friendly."
"The GUI is a little bit outdated."
"The solution can improve in the development area and the customized applications."
Atlassian ALM is ranked 17th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while IBM Rational ALM is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews. Atlassian ALM is rated 7.6, while IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Atlassian ALM writes "Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational ALM writes "A complex deployment that is not stable, but is cloud-based". Atlassian ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Polarion ALM, TFS and Rally Software, whereas IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Polarion ALM and Rally Software. See our Atlassian ALM vs. IBM Rational ALM 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.