We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Easily integrates with Oracle e-Business Suite."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"The solution's support team was always there to help."
"Quality management, project management from a QA perspective - testing, defect management, how testing relates back to requirements."
"I found the ease of use most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. Creating test cases is easier because the solution allows writing in Excel."
"The tools could be useful if we were utilizing them more effectively"
"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management. We are able to achieve all of this, the solution is very useful."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Quality Center's UI is outdated, and it's a little bit slow on the login part and different parts of the application. That's why we're switching solutions. I believe most companies are switching to Octane or something else. Micro Focus should enhance the interface and reports."
"Defect ageing reports need to be included as built-in."
"We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product."
"The solution needs to offer support for Agile. Currently, ALM only supports Waterfall."
"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."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"ALM uses a waterfall approach. We have some hybrid approaches in the company and need a more agile approach."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". 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 ". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.