Micro Focus Caliber (discontinued) vs. OpenText Dimensions RM

I personally would prefer other products on the market right now such as Microsoft Team Foundation Server and Test Manager. I think having a product like Caliber that can only do requirements without integrating with a another system makes things a little more time consuming.

Incentivized

from my point of view its usually suited for a project with 20 to 50 members in it. have more than that may cause issue. because of sharing will be difficult among more people

Incentivized

• Borland Caliber tracks functional and non-functional requirements pretty easily. You can easily add a requirement and attach a spreadsheet or a picture if needed.
• Moving the hierarchy of requirements is fairly easy by just dragging and dropping.
• Assigning users to approve requirements is simple by the fields included when adding a requirement and then submitting for review.

Incentivized

• Traceability - will allow you to see end to end how requirements are related to each other, to project artifacts, how the requirement was tested, and the implementation code (when using with Serena CM).
• Baselines - these are snapshots in time which are typically used at project phases and milestones. They allow you to see all aspects of a project from requirements to testing and how it has progressed or changed over time.
• Test Management - test steps, execution, defect management are all included in RM, providing a powerful SDLC management platform.

Incentivized

• I think Borland Caliber visually needs to be updated. It looks very out of date compared to other products on the market. The text box has a notepad feel to it and it's hard to make it visually catching.
• Borland Caliber needs to be easier to integrate with other testing and development products on the market.
• Having fields more related to URS and FRS would be helpful to auto-link to a document. So enter in a URS or FRS document ID at the beginning of a project in Caliber and then auto-assigning requirement IDs to link to pieces of code or test cases and having the user be able to decide a naming convention.
• Borland Caliber needs a specific table for linking to a document ID and then each requirement could auto-generate a sub ID for each requirement to make the process of filling in User Requirements and Functional Requirements more efficient. Then the user should be able to modify the sub ID if the naming convention needed to be different.

Incentivized

• it is a centralized software so the issue is only one user can have access to software at a given point of time
• some times check-in and check out takes time
• its little difficult for newbies to understand and work with

Incentivized

I think Borland Caliber is better than Atlassian Confluence and has way more options for ease of use and reporting. Team Foundation Server is my personal choice as it comes as a package for developers to link to requirements easily and link to test cases. Borland Caliber is visually the least attractive of the three systems I have used. If you need just a requirement manager for tracking and reporting then Borland Caliber is a great choice.

Incentivized

Incentivized

• Having Borland Caliber would be nice if you only need to track requirements and your company does not do any developing or testing.
• It does link very well with HP Quality Center for requirement and test asset tracking and ease of use.
• Borland Caliber is cheaper than a lot of other products on the market that have the same features.

Incentivized

• management of requirement is much easier
• centralized access to all the document
• better user friendly experience

Incentivized