TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

IBM Cloud Functions vs. OpenText ALM/Quality Center

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    IBM Cloud Functions

    Score6.5 out of 10
    N/AIBM Cloud Functions is a PaaS platform based on Apache OpenWhisk. With it, developers write code (“actions”) that respond to external events. Actions are hosted, executed, and scaled on demand based on the number of events coming in. No servers or infrastructure to provision and manage.

    $0

    per second of execution

    OpenText ALM/Quality Center

    Score9.3 out of 10
    N/AOpenText™ ALM/Quality Center, formerly from Micro Focus, serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps users to govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.N/A
    Pricing
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Editions & Modules
    Basic Cloud Functions Rate
    $0.00017
    per second of execution
    API Gateway Rate
    Free
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Free Trial
    NoNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Considered Both Products
    IBM
    No answer on this topic
    OpenText
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    83%
    Would buy again
    5 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    80%
    Delivers good value for the price
    4 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    83%
    Happy with the feature set
    5 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Best Alternatives
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Small Businesses
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Polarion ALM
    Score10 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    PTC Windchill RV&S
    Score2 out of 10
    Enterprises
    AWS Lambda
    Score8.3 out of 10
    Polarion ALM
    Score10 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Likelihood to Recommend
    3.0
    (7 ratings)
    7.1
    (31 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.0
    (2 ratings)
    Usability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    3.0
    (2 ratings)
    Support Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.4
    (2 ratings)
    Ease of integration
    -
    (0 ratings)
    1.0
    (1 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    IBM Cloud FunctionsOpenText ALM/Quality Center
    Likelihood to Recommend
    IBM
    IBM Cloud Functions [is] not the worse product on the IBM cloud. I decided to write this review as I thought it would be balanced. I would still use functions to set up a serverless architecture where execution time is pretty quick and the code is relatively simple. I wouldn't use IBM Cloud Functions for async calls obviously, as costs could be higher. The functions documentation is lacking in terms of CI/CD, and there are unexplainable errors occurring - like the network connection that I mentioned. So I wouldn't just rely on IBM Cloud Functions too much for the entire system, but make sure it's diversified.
    Read full review
    OpenText
    For an organisation that has completely adopted SAFe structure including naming terminology, it is less appropriate and apart from that. It can suit any organisation out there, and it can solve all your problems one way or another by customising it. It is a robust and highly scalable solution to support all the business needs. It improves a lot of productivity and visibility.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    IBM
    • Great substitute for a simple API calls to run non-complicated code.
    • Easy way to run Python/Java/Javascript to get something done.
    • File validation.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • If you have a mix of automation & manual test suites, HPALM is the best tool to manage that. It definitely integrates very well with HP automation tools like HP Unified Functional Testing and HP LoadRunner. Automated Suites can be executed, reports can be maintained automatically. It also classifies which test suites are manual & which are automated & managers can see the progress happening in moving from manual to automated suites. In HPA ALM all the functional test suites, performance test suites, security suites can be defined, managed & tracked in one place.
    • It is a wonderful tool for test management. Whether you want to create test cases, or import it, from execution to snapshot capturing, it supports all activities very well. The linking of defects to test runs is excellent. Any changes in mandatory fields or status of the defect triggers an e-mail and sent automatically to the user that the defect is assigned to.
    • It also supports devops implementation by interacting with development tool sets such as Jenkins & GIT. It also bring in team collaboration by supporting collaboration tools like Slack and Hubot.
    • This tool can integrate to any environment, any source control management tool bringing in changes and creates that trace-ability and links between source control changes to requirements to tests across the sdlc life-cycle.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    IBM
    • Billing can be a hassle, not the most responsive customer service/support team
    • Handles & executes most functionalities, but other platforms offer more scalability if you're seeking consistent and stable growth
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • The requirements module is not as user friendly as other applications, such as Blue Bird. Managing requirements is usually done in another tool. However, having the requirements in ALM is important to ensure traceability to tests and defects.
    • Reporting across multiple ALM repositories is not supported within the tool. Only graphs are included within ALM functionality. Due to size considerations, one or two projects is not a good solution. Alternatively, we have started leveraging the template functionality within ALM and are integrating with a third party reporting tool to work around this issue.
    • NET (not Octane) requires a package for deployment to machines without administrative rights. Every time there is a change, a new package must be created, which increases the time to deploy. It also forces us to wait until multiple patches have been provided before updating production.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    OpenText
    I like the ease to use and its reliable.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    OpenText
    Because it lets me track the test cases with detailed scenarios and is clearly separated in folders. Also the defect filter helps me filter only the ones that have been assigned to a particular area of interest. The availability of reports lets me see the essentials fields which I might be missing the data on and helps me to work on these instead of having to go through everything.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    IBM
    No answers on this topic
    OpenText
    It is a great tool, however, it got this rating because there is a lot of learning that takes a lot longer than other tools. There are no mobile versions of ALM even with just a project summary view. I believe ALM is well capable of integration with other analytics tools that can help business solutions prediction based on current and past project data. This is Data held in ALM but with no other use apart from human reading and project progress. ALM looks like a steady platform that I believe can handle more dynamic functionality. You could add an internal communication platform that is not a third party. Limit that communication tool to specific project members.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    IBM
    • ICF is a lightweight service and does not require runtime configurations
    • Scalable on demand and hence there is no need to pay for runtime costs
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    We have other tools in our organization like Atlassian JIRA and Microsoft Team Foundation Server, which are very capable tools but very narrow in their approach and feature set and does not come even close to the some of the core capabilities of HP ALM. HP ALM is the "System of Record" in our organization. It gives visibility for an artifact throughout the delivery chain, which cut downs unnecessary bottlenecks and noise during releases.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    IBM
    • It directly affected our expenses since we do not need to deploy and maintain a set of separate applications.
    • It allowed us to pay for only the amount of time cloud functions run.
    • It saved on maintenance and monitoring of the applications it replaced.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • ALM/QC has allowed for quick, traceable turnaround on relatively simple tasks
    • ALM/QC allows us to achieve our business objective of always being able to refer to a documented ticket for work being done.
    • ALM/QC navigation is not the easiest, so this aspect of the product has caused great frustration among new users.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots