Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Engineering Rhapsody vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
IBM Rhapsody's support is valued but faces delays; users suggest better online resources alongside local vendor reliance.
Sentiment score
6.2
OpenText ALM customer service is inconsistent, with mixed reviews on response times, expertise, and overall service quality.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.4
IBM Engineering Rhapsody needs better reporting, user interfaces, tutorials, customization, integration, stability, and Git for enhanced user experience.
Sentiment score
4.2
OpenText ALM faces challenges with expensive licenses, outdated UI, limited integration, and performance issues, hindering usability and efficiency.
Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.
The user-friendly nature could be enhanced as the interface isn’t intuitive.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
IBM Engineering Rhapsody is scalable for various team sizes, though potential issues may arise with larger user numbers and integration.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText ALM/Quality Center scales well, with stable performance for large user bases, but licensing may affect scalability costs.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
3.2
IBM Engineering Rhapsody is costly, but users value its features and maintain long-term use despite the price.
Sentiment score
4.7
OpenText ALM is costly, requiring careful evaluation and negotiation, but global license sharing and SaaS could reduce expenses.
It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.7
IBM Engineering Rhapsody is generally stable, but experiences vary, with some users reporting occasional bugs and performance issues.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText ALM/Quality Center is stable and reliable, with minor issues often linked to network or hardware constraints.
From a stability standpoint, OpenText ALM Quality Center has been pretty good.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Engineering Rhapsody enhances planning with Scrum, Git integration, compliance, and cost-effective collaboration via a customizable, cloud-based platform.
Sentiment score
8.0
OpenText ALM/Quality Center provides comprehensive traceability, integration, scalability, and secure management for lifecycle, test cases, and defects.
The integration with internal applications and CollabNet is made possible through exposed APIs, allowing necessary integrations.
It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Engineering Rhapsody
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
13th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText ALM / Quality Center
Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Rhapsody is 2.7%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is 5.7%, up from 5.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
 

Featured Reviews

Harold Pogue - PeerSpot reviewer
A complex deployment that is not stable, but is cloud-based
The team of 15 to 20 software engineers uses IBM Rational ALM and Jira for testing. They coupled different online packages together because the Duration Enterprise was impossible to use IBM Rational ALM did not help the organization and we ended up moving to another solution. The most valuable…
Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Has an initial setup phase that is easy to manage
The tool has some limitations for the dashboard, especially when it comes to 20 or 25 of them, which is sometimes not enough, and one may have to use a custom Excel to help extend the dashboard. The tool needs improvements since it is an old technology. OpenText ALM / Quality Center's improved version is ALM Octane but it does not support some of the traditional parts of the original product. Some of the traditional parts are missing in a lot of areas of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. It is difficult to directly transfer OpenText ALM / Quality Center to ALM Octane. Some of the classic OEMs have limitations, especially when used in an IDE network. There is a need for the tool to check where changes in UI or UX need to be made. The technology used for UI and UX are not user-friendly.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
7%
Educational Organization
63%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with IBM Rational ALM?
The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex. For business users with no experience in IT, it can be particularly challenging to understand the UI and create test cas...
What is your primary use case for IBM Rational ALM?
We use IBM Rational ALM as part of our overall application suite for our manufacturing company. It is used by our engineering team to capture requirements, perform testing, and manage defects. Spec...
What do you like most about Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The most valuable feature is the ST Add-In. It's a Microsoft add-in that makes it much easier to upload test cases into Quality Center.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
The extract format is not ideal, splitting expected results into three line items, making interpretation difficult. Issues with mapping multiple functional test cases to one automated test case nee...
 

Also Known As

Rational ALM, MKS
Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Tennis Australia, WeCloud AB, Port Otago Limited, Logicalis US, Valmer, The Chevrolet Volt, Ashurst
Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Rhapsody vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.