IBM Rational ALM vs OpenText ALM / Quality Center comparison

"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."

"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 tools for requirement capture we have found very useful."

"At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online."

"The integration with Git works well."

"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."

"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."

"I would rate the stability of this product a nine out of ten."

"Defect management is very good."

"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."

"As a system administrator, HPE ALM can be flexibly configured so that it can accommodate a variety of defined project lifecycles and test methodologies."

"You can maintain your test cases and requirements. You can also log the defects in it and make the traceability metrics out of it. There are all sorts of things you can do in this. It is not that complex to use. In terms of user experience, it is very simple to adopt. It is a good product."

"Being able to manage tests as this is something very difficult to find in other products."

"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."

"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."

"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."

"IBM Rational ALM should remove the features not used by the customers and keep this product as lightweight as possible."

"The user interface requires significant improvement as it is overly complex."

"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."

"The product must be more user-friendly."

"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."

"The stability of IBM Rational ALM could be improved."

"We are looking for more automation capabilities."

"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."

"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."

"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."

"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."

"ALM Quality Center could be improved with more techniques to manage Agile processes."

"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."

"HP-QC does not support Agile. It is designed for Waterfall. This is the number one issue that we're facing right now, which is why we want to look for another tool. We're a pharmaceutical services company, so we require electronic signatures in a tool, but this functionality isn't available in HP-QC. We don't have 21 CFR, Part 11, electronic signatures, and we need compliant electronic signatures. Some of the ALM tools can toggle between tabular format and document format for requirements, but the same feature is not available in this solution. There is also no concept of base-lining or versioning. It doesn't exist."

"IBM Rational ALM has both monthly and yearly licensing options."

"The solution is not cheap."

"The price of the solution could be reduced. Many of our customers are not using all the features and this could be why our clients feel the price is too high."

"This product is a little expensive and we had to pay extra to have them set it up for us."

"We have a contract, but I am not aware of the details."

"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

"We pay around $30,000 for thirty users, translating to approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per user, which is high."

"The solution was expensive for us."

"Quality Center is pricey, but cheaper is not always less expensive."

"It has several limitations in adapting its agility easily."

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive."