BugTracker.net vs. OpenText Core Share

See above. Recommended questions: What type of feedback or tracking will we be doing? Will this need to be client-facing? How will we track content edits? How many users will be assigned to issues in a given project?

Incentivized

OpenText Core Share is a great tool for storing files and collaborating. It makes for a great collaboration tool. It's easy to track changes, enable or disable access to others, and works directly from browser. It needs some improvisations in terms of speed and consistency. Overall, it's a great tool for small teams to work together.

Incentivized

• Ability to split our multiple projects and assign a user base.
• Ability to set permissions based on user base/ roles.
• Customization of fields on a project level.

Incentivized

• Integration with Office 365 apps.
• Sharing files externally is easy.
• Version history.
• Folder structure is well organised.

Incentivized

• User interface for client-facing feedback
• Content and design updates tracking

Incentivized

• Drag and drop feature needs to be optimised.
• No inbuilt backup tool.
• Desktop app sync needs to improved and quick.

Incentivized

I would plan on renewing and staying with BugTracker.net simply because it is a no nonsense easy to use tool. Once you get it set up and understand the small nuances with this custom piece of software, it really is a great tool to help your organization get started with Defect Management and BugTracking without having to drop several thousands of dollars on tools that are more fluff than function.

Incentivized

I didn't choose the product or evaluate other options, but I've been satisified with it except for tracking content changes.

Incentivized

Nothing. OpenText Core Share is our only choice.

Incentivized

• Decreased turn around time for defect fixes.
• Smoother builder deploys
• Clearer communication from QA to Dev Team

Incentivized

• Increased productivity.
• Collaboration between teams.
• Secure way to share files.

Incentivized