OpenText Software Delivery Management Reviews

Octane is a relatively new solution for us. We needed better tooling than we previously had and Octane gave us extra flexibility. Our primary use case is for cross-project program reporting and dashboards. We are customers of Micro Focus and I'm a company director. 

The dashboards and metric reporting are valuable features for us. From a development perspective, we use Jira and Zephyr. To stay agile, we need to ensure that our Jira data is feeding into our ALM projects. It's about the real-time integration between the two and bringing that information across accurately. 

I haven't been impressed with the reporting from a requirements matrix and a traceability perspective. ALM has always lacked in this area. They come at it more from a Waterfall testing perspective, and less from a Sprint-based perspective. It's in those areas that we use Jira with some of our development teams. We ran into roadblocks due to the sheer number of users, around 1,500 people using the tool, carrying out testing, and ensuring that people understand the requirements.

I think they need to look at ways of innovating and finding the wow factor with more flexibility and agility in development, but they've never really been good at handling that which is why we stick with Jira. There hasn't been much investment in the tool and there are definitely some areas that can be improved upon.

I've been using this solution for about six months. 

The stability is fine and they give you the capability that you need to run a good quality engineering program. It's what they've been providing more or less for at least 20 years; perhaps it's time for some innovation.  

There's no problem with scalability. 

We don't deal directly with Micro Focus but with one of their support teams through another vendor. We've never had an issue. 

ALM is a little pricier than Zephyr Enterprise. Because of our familiarity with ALM and the fact that we had all the integrations, it was easier to resume using it. 

We compared Zephyr Enterprise with ALM and decided to go with ALM because we have another provider that already had integration with ALM. If we'd gone with Zephyr, it would have required some technical integrations with their APIs and some of our testing tools. From a capability perspective, the two solutions are pretty on par with one another. If an organization is evaluating capabilities versus investment, then they might prefer Zephyr.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are using it for test management. We are using its latest version.

It can simplify testing by structuring it after the application modules that you are defining yourself, and these are both tests and defects connected, which helps you control the quality in different areas of your solution that you deliver.

The filtering options are very good once you learn them. The document reports are also valuable. You can create reports in Word and PDF formats. That's very useful.

It is flexible. You can integrate it with a lot of other products that are available. If needed, there are APIs available. That's also very good. It's also pretty easy to adapt for the users.

Development of extensions or connections to GitHub actions could be better. Better integration with Azure DevOps would also help.

I have been using this solution for about four years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. It is just about adding more power and more Elasticsearch servers, and you should be fine.

We have about 500 different users daily.

We are happy with them. We have weekly meetings with the PAM.

We used HP ALM Quality Center. We switched to Octane because it's a more modern platform. It runs on full browsers and all OSes. So, it makes sense to use it. 

We installed it on the side of the existing one, and we migrated step by step or project by project. 

To start with, it was pretty complex because it was a pretty new solution when we installed it. We were probably one of the first bigger companies installing it. So, we were quite early adopters, but it is a lot easier today to install this. We haven't had any problems. There are very few errors in the solution.

It was done a long time ago, but we spent a lot of time because we had to explore enabling single sign-on, etc. That contributed to taking some time, but that had nothing to do with the product. It is probably a lot simpler today.

We are an IT company. We do it ourselves. We had just two people. We probably had a DBA too.

It is hard to say. We don't measure it, but we probably have seen an ROI.

If you compare the price with the functionality, it is pretty much the same as other solutions. If you compare it to Jira, for instance, it has a lot more functionality. You don't need any plug-ins, but it's also more expensive. Once you start adding your different plug-ins to Jira, you'll probably end up with the same amount or more.

There is also a yearly support cost, which is usually 25% of the initial cost of the license.

We already had ALM Quality Center. So, it was a natural move to Octane. It was easier for migration purposes, and the users knew some of the main functionalities. So, we did not evaluate other tools.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is pretty good.

We use Micro Focus ALM Octane for testing. We don't use the entire portfolio, but we use it for testing, documenting test cases, executing test cases, and tracking defects. The platform is critical to us, because we're using it for compliance purposes.

We like Micro Focus ALM Octane because its performance is okay, and its stability is okay, so we use it a lot. The platform is easy to use.

From my personal point of view, what could be improved in Micro Focus ALM Octane is its integration with Jira. The latest version of the platform could have that integration by now, but at least our version doesn't have that integration with Jira.

We're using Jira for our user storage and the whole agile part of a software development lifecycle. We don't have that Jira integration, so the testing and the definition of user storage are separate. We're moving more and more towards the agile software development lifecycle, and we chose to stick to Jira, so what I'd like to see in the next release of Micro Focus ALM Octane is Jira integration.

I've been using Micro Focus ALM Octane for years.

Micro Focus ALM Octane is a stable platform.

I'm not sure what other tools we used before using Micro Focus ALM Octane, because we've been using it for a long, long time.

The initial setup for Micro Focus ALM Octane is very straightforward.

I'm not sure which version of Micro Focus ALM Octane we're using, but I know it's not the latest version. We have 3,000 users of Micro Focus ALM Octane, and we have plans to increase usage for it.

I would recommend the platform to others who are looking into using it.

I would rate Micro Focus ALM Octane a nine. It's not perfect, but it could also be because we're not using the latest version. We use it a lot, and it really adds value.

The platform's most valuable feature is pipeline integration or continuous integration services. It can fetch insights about various deposit points after synchronizing with Jira, IBM, or other tools. It gives visualization through dashboards and reports updates quickly and easily.

The product's requirements management feature needs enhancement in terms of functionality. Also, the release management feature needs expansion.

We have been using OpenText ALM Octane for ten years.

I rate the platform's stability a ten out of ten.

I have worked with around 400 OpenText ALM Octane customers. It works well for synchronizing data.

We had a good experience working in the support team's R and D department. However, they could provide more technical resolutions.

Positive

We used HPE Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for a significant amount of time. From a competitive point of view, no comprehensive tools could cover ALM functionalities better than HPE and OpenText. Almost 80% of enterprise companies use OpenText as a well-integrated solution. It doesn't require the technical expertise required to work with open-source tools. Also, it provides good support services.

The initial setup process is straightforward. The platform has well-defined, out-of-the-box workspaces and projects incorporating good practice workflows.

The product is highly priced compared to other tools. However, it offers substantial value. There is a distinction between OEM pricing and the final pricing for customers. They could understand the delta between the two and work towards a favorable outcome.

I rate OpenText ALM Octane a ten out of ten. It is a great product considering ETL and DevOps methodologies. It integrates and synchronizes well with other tools as well. I advise others to understand the business requirements before making a purchase decision.

Micro Focus ALM Octane is primarily used for test management, specifically to manage all testware in a single location. It also allows linking requirements to tests and tests to defects, ensuring defects are traced back to their original requirements. With ALM Octane, users can manage requirements, allowing for the execution of appropriate tests on the code. If a defect arises, it can be linked back to the test case and requirement for effective resolution.

Regarding features, the ability to work on the whole life cycle management, especially to manage the whole software testing life cycle, is the most valuable in Micro Focus ALM Octane.

In terms of improvements, it would be beneficial for Micro Focus ALM Octane to have the ability to interface with newer page tools that support DevOps for operations and testing. Currently, Micro Focus ALM Octane is considered an old-world tool in the industry and lacks the perception of being a new-age tool among its customers. Changing this perception is necessary to improve the reputation of ALM Octane in the industry.

I have experience with solutions from Micro Focus since my company has had a partnership with Micro Focus for more than ten years.

It is a very stable tool. The tool has been in the industry for so many years. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The number of individuals participating in the deployment process varies. Our company provides testing services, employs 34,000 individuals, and many of our clients utilize Micro Focus ALM Octane. This implies that many people use this tool, after considering 34,000 end-users from our company's end who are using Micro Focus ALM Octane.

For deployment, the number of required tech engineers depends on the size of the project. For installation, one or two people may suffice. However, for usage, there will be many others who need to use it.

The tool itself does not require any maintenance. However, it may require customization based on the specific needs of each customer. Workflows may need to be customized to meet the unique requirements of each customer.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Since our company uses the tool for a lot of our customers, we get the best and premium support. Also, all our customers get premium support from Micro Focus if they buy the licensing for the tool via our company. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten. I rated it eight since Micro Focus' technical support needs to understand that there could be specific problems with the customer that they need to understand because, at every place, it doesn't work the same way as there may be changes in the workflow or there may be customization requirements. So, it takes technical support time to understand and give a solution to the users.

Positive

I work with QA Testing Tools from Tricentis and Rally by Broadcom. A competition to Micro Focus ALM Octane would be Jira and Visor's combination.

The solution's initial setup process is reasonably easy. On a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, considering its ease of installation.

There are various options to deploy the tool. In the company that I worked for, we did not use much of the tool. We were only providing this tool for our customers. So, mostly the solution was deployed on-premises even though there were options to deploy the solution on the cloud. The deployment process can be carried out in three to four days or a week maximum.

The pricing of the tool falls in the mid-range zone. When you compare it to other similar tools, I would say it's on the expensive side. The licensing costs for the tool are not straightforward and vary based on several factors, such as the volume of licenses, duration, geography, and customer. The price may become lesser if there is a higher volume or longer duration. Therefore, giving a straightforward one-line answer regarding the price is impossible.

I rate the tool's pricing an eight on a scale from one to ten, where ten is very expensive.

My suggestion for those considering the solution would be to first understand their needs. In some cases, this tool may not make sense for smaller organizations. However, for medium or large organizations, using a tool that can provide a lot of value is definitely worth it. Careful consideration should be given to why they need this tool and what they are looking for, as there are now many options available. In the early days, there were not many options for a tool that could link requirements to testing and execution. Now, there are many combinations and smaller tools available. Depending on the organization's needs, they will have to decide whether this solution can help them.

There is a lot of competition, and there are many lightweight tools that are able to do whatever Micro Focus ALM Octane does. The other reason for my rating of the solution is related to some customers' perception of the tool being outdated. Some customers may expect the tool to have the latest features, such as built-in artificial intelligence capabilities. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

I like the fact that you can use it on top of Jira. 

Let's say for example, that if you have a DevOps team that is used to Jira, they can continue to use any of the Jira solutions and then have Octane layered on top of it from the business buyer's viewpoint to better use it more effectively.

There is no question that everything can improve.

I like their smart analytics; perhaps they should continue to expand and improve there because it's a fantastic start. And I enjoy the testing, especially the automated testing capabilities, so just keep improving on what they have.

I have been working with Micro Focus ALM Octane for one year.

I am reviewing the latest version.

Micro Focus ALM Octane is a stable solution.

Because of HPE's support, I would feel far more comfortable with Micro Focus.

Micro Focus ALM Octane is a scalable product.

We have approximately 500 clients who are using this solution.

They are large enterprises and digital transformation, IT engineers, more business-oriented than DevOps-oriented.

We have not contacted technical support.

We are working with the Hybrid version, but It even extends to on-premises. It is both the on-premises and cloud versions.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I believe it depends on the circumstance, getting it up and running seems to be rather simple. It appears to be suitable for standing up in a bigger setting.

If I compare it to Jira, for example, and you are in a complex environment, you have to ensure that everything is updated and all of the plugins, and everything works every time there is an update, but you don't have that problem with Micro Focus' Octane.

We received assistance from a third-party consultant.

Because I am making recommendations for a client, I lack firsthand deployment experience. I am merely talking to them and assisting them in making decisions.

My clients have seen a return on investment. I can't quantify it for you, but they believe that because it is cohesive and can be used across the enterprise in a simplified manner, it reduces the total cost of ownership, which might be translated into a return on investment.

In my opinion, it's good value for the price that you pay.

I have some experience with Jira and Micro Focus ALM Octane, but I am mostly reviewing them to give a recommendation for a client.

I would suggest reviewing it thoroughly to make sure that it is a good fit for your environment.

I believe it works well in a variety of settings, but like with any solution, some are more suited to some situations than others. I believe it is trustworthy, reputable, and scalable.

I would rate Micro Focus ALM Octane an eight out of ten.

I mainly use ALM Octane for product teams and Agile teams.

The biggest problem with ALM Octane is that it's very complex, so it's difficult to use and scale. The graphics could also be improved, and CSD could be added.

I've been using this solution for over a year.

ALM Octane is stable, but its performance isn't so good.

The scalability isn't good.

Micro Focus' technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was difficult and took over three months.

We used an in-house team to implement.

ALM Octane is very expensive.

I compared Octane with Jira, which is better-priced and more user-friendly than Octane.

ALM Octane is complex and difficult to use, so you have to be willing to train the people who are going to be working with it. I would rate it five out of ten. 

I work for a state government in the United States. So our business constituents have departments that use it. And we have analysts who build business cases in the ALM Octane for specific tasks or specific projects that we're working on. We create business rules for each project in ALM Octane. Then, when the developers finish coding and we're getting ready to test, we use ALM Octane again to test against the business rules we created. So that way, we know we're meeting our business objectives, our customer's requests, and what they want to be changed in our system.

It's more streamlined because we have it all under one umbrella. And once the business requirements and rules have been created, we can do test cases and apply them to the business rules. So we're able to make sure that the developers' code is tested thoroughly to meet the needs of the business.

It would help us if ALM Octane got FedRAMP-certified, so our government departments could use the cloud solution. That way our external consultants could access it. We've created a URL to get to it, but if it were FedRAMP-certified and service and had support in the continental United States, that would be better. In the government space, we need organizations or companies to be FedRAMP-certified, and the system must reside in the continental United States. The Micro Focus help desk and their environment are not located in the continental United States, so they do not meet the state's criteria for us to be on the cloud. I understand that the company is working on some FedRAMP certifications and is looking to do that because they cannot put all of their government customers in their cloud environment. It's not a technology issue. It's a security issue.

So we've been using Micro Focus for almost four years now, but we just recently migrated to Octane back in July of this year.

ALM Octane is very scalable. We have a great server team that we use to increase its space or size. We handle it internally, but it works great. 

We have worked with Micro Focus support, and they're very good. I'd say 9 or 10 out of 10. They're always available. And if they don't know how to fix an issue, they know to talk to. It may not be the person you're talking to or the person they've referred them to, but they know somebody who could help. So they know how to escalate within their organization.

So before July, we were using IBM DOORS Next Generation for business requirements.  Then we decided to consolidate the business requirements, testing, and defect management into one system, and Octane provided that solution for us. So we were able to decommission IBM DOORS Next Generation for business requirements after our July implementation to ALM Octane.

We looked at Micro Focus ALM minus the Octane solution about two years before they decided to go with DOORS Next Generation. And they selected DOORS Next Generation, but IBM's integration with Micro Focus wasn't very mature. So it required a lot of manual tinkering to get the two systems to talk together. Finally, after some analysis about how much time was being spent, staffing resources, etc., we just went with ALM Octane.

Setting up ALM Octane is straightforward because we were already using Micro Focus ALM for testing. We were implementing it in the business requirements area. That was four years ago, so I can't remember exactly how long it took, but it was a few months. I'd say maybe two to three months. We did it on our own with Micro Focus guiding us. And Micro Focus had a statewide user base at the time. Other departments were using it, so we were able to share what everyone was doing. I have two FTEs. One is in charge of the business requirements module, and the other oversees the test testing and defect management.

I think the cost of ALM Octane is comparable to other solutions. It's actually a little less than DOORS Next Generation, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.

I rate MicroFocus ALM Octane eight out of 10. It's a great product. If you want to integrate your business requirements with your testing and defect-management tracking, it works beautifully.