We performed a comparison between Jira and OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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."Jira is easy to use and there are a lot of tools that are integrated with it."
"Jira is designed for issue tracking, making the process much easier than traditional methods like paper-based tracking. It is number one for agile management."
"Jira has a good reporting system. It also has an API, so we can do all sorts of reporting."
"The dashboard and reports tracking and the setup updates quickly, I am very impressed with those features. Additionally, it is user-friendly."
"Jira is great for story management."
"It's very simple to change the workflow and adapt it. Jira is very user friendly for the agent and the user."
"JIRA's technical support is absolutely fantabulous. I had used it in the past when I was working at my previous organization. And when we wanted to link it with a framework, they helped us out with the API we were looking for."
"Kanban board: The board is easy to use and visually impressive to non-IT users, who found it easy to relate to."
"It is a tool, and it works. It has got good linkage and good traceability between the test cases and the defects. It has got lots of features for testing."
"The stability is very good."
"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."
"Integration with other HPE products."
"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not too hard to deploy."
"The independent view of elevated access is good."
"I like the traceability, especially between requirements, testing, and defects."
"Jira could be easier to use, especially for administrative tasks. It's quite complex, so it's important to understand it well. While the reporting and dashboards are good, there's room for improvement in some areas where extra features would be helpful."
"I would like to see visualization of release planning. I can list the releases and I can give dates to releases, but to show how they are happening on a timeline, I would need to order the Portfolio part. But just for this, it may be too much to use the Portfolio for that."
"Jira is a little bit old fashioned, it could be more user friendly."
"Slow when integrating with other components."
"In Jira Cloud, integration with Excel is missing. Previously, I could import our Excel files into Jira, and I could also download a big Jira report in the Excel format, but now, it needs to be manipulated after that, which is not good. It looks like they've done that on purpose, but I don't understand the reason for it."
"Although it covers the overall requirements and measurements, it'll help if they had their own test execution feature."
"There are some minor quirks, such as zero-point stories not appearing in the portfolio scope."
"The performance is not so good sometimes. I know that fully depends on the implementation and the IT environment of Jira or the version of Jira installed. The performance is sometimes not so good. I would like to have a better response time from the Jira server. And it fully depends on the administration side of the Jira."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"There are always new features and more support for new and legacy technology architectures with each release. But the bad news is a growing list of long-standing issues with the product rarely gets addressed."
"The Agile methodology is now being used across all the organizations, but in this solution, we don't have a dashboard like Jira. In Jira, you can move your product backlogs from one space to another and see the progress, that is, whether a backlog is in the development stage or testing stage. Micro Focus ALM Quality Center does not have this feature. It is typically very straightforward. You just execute the test cases from it, and you just make them pass, fail, or whatever. They can also improve its integration with Jira. The browser support needs to be improved in this because it supports only Internet Explorer as of now. It does not have support for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or any other browser. There are also some performance issues in it. Let's say that you are doing the testing, and you found something and are logging the defect. When you try to attach several or multiple screenshots with the defect, it slows down, which is a very common problem people face. I would like them to include a functionality where I am able to see the reports across all the projects. When you have multiple projects, being a manager, I would like to see the reports across all the projects. Currently, there is no single sign-on through which we can get all the information at one place. You need to log into it project-wise. If you have ten projects, you can't view the information in one dashboard."
"The product is good, it's great, but when compared to other products with the latest methodologies, or when rating it as a software development tool, then I'll have to rate it with a lower score because there's a lot of other great tools where you can interconnect them, use them, scale them, and leverage. It all depends on the cost."
"The QA needs improvement."
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"It is pricey."
"Requirements management could be improved as the use is very limited. E.g., they have always stated that, "You can monitor and create requirements," but it has its limitations. That's why companies will choose another requirements management solution and import data from that source system into Quality Center. Micro Focus has also invested in an adapter between Dimensions RM and ALM via Micro Focus Connect. However, I see room for improvements in this rather outdated tool. I feel what Micro Focus did is say, "Our strategy is not to improve these parts within the tool itself, but search for supported integrations within our own tool set." This has not been helpful."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Jira is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 266 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Jira is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Digital.ai Agility, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Jira vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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.
Micro Focus ALM is a complete Test Management tool that can cover Requirements management, Defects management, Test Plan, Test Execution Suites as well as automation test executions with MF UFT (former HP QC). If you have a testing heavy project then MF ALM covers all the testing expectations well.
However, in an integrated environment with development, releases, and testing, JIRA can offer a better experience for JIRA issues (for requirements and incidents/defects), add-on for testing from JIRA marketplace (e.g. X-Ray) and offers a better fitment for DevOps. Developers and testers can work with the same tool for defects. requirements i.e. JIRA and manage testing with JIRA add-ons for Test Management.
I don't know enough about Micro Focus ALM but based from what I have seen it does provide a lot more than JIRA. I have worked with Azure DevOps and know that it can also provide more than JIRA. AZURE DevOps seems to be similar in comparison with Micro Focus ALM. So I would say if it was between JIRA and Micro Focus, then I will choose the latter.