Rally Software headquartered in Boulder, Colorado developed the Rally agile software development / ALM platform which was acquired by CA Technologies and rebranded as CA Agile Central. After CA's acquisition by Broadcom the software was once again rebranded as Rally.
N/A
Tricentis qTest
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony) provides enterprise-level agile testing tools giving businesses visibility and control needed to ensure application quality in fast-paced development environments. Tricentis and QASymphony merged in summer 2018.
- It was not our decision to use qTest as a tool, as this was a management decision. - Since I have used many Test Management Tools I can compare for e.g The Reporting and Statistics in qTest is very impressive.
Rally is well suited to help outline the specific tasks of a project, create timelines, indicate progress/status of tasks and provide views of team members' workloads. My team used it for our weekly stand up meetings in order to update one another on our progress, and our manager used it as a way to determine who had capacity for additional tasks. It facilitated our transition to a more agile work environment and we used it to implement 2 week "sprints".
Best Case Scenario 1. Large-Scale Enterprise Testing Example: qTest’s requirement traceability and audit trails ensured compliance with strict regulatory standards 2. Agile/DevOps Teams with Jira Example:In a CI/CD pipeline, qTest’s Jira sync automated defect logging. Developers fixed bugs faster because tickets included linked test steps and screenshots. 3. Manual Regression Testing Example: Versioned test cases and bulk editing streamline repetitive workflows. Less Appropriate Scenarios 1. Small Teams with Simple Projects Example: Heavyweight for lightweight needs 2. Mobile-First Testing Example: Lacks native mobile testing features (e.g., real-device support).
There are dashboards that provide friendly and useful metrics at the team, program and portfolio levels which help get an easy and quick visual representation of what's going on.
Story management made easier, It offers a quick way of quickly entering a number of user stories without losing the overview, by just typing the title and selecting a few attributes directly in the overview screen.
Sprint management is seamless in CA Agile Central . It allows you to drag stories from the backlog to the sprints and back again. When a story is dragged into an sprint, it automatically checks the velocity for that sprint and indicates how many more story points can be chipped in. No more manual checking needed by scrum master with respect to allocation and team velocity.
Though CA Agile Central has many inbuilt apps, but it also has an App-SDK that allows you to build free app extensions using JavaScript and HTML. So, as per their needs, teams can customize & build various apps & dashboards.
Dashboard is an awesome feature which allows you to select and drag panels with all kinds of graphical information about the current sprints and releases.
It offers tremendous support for scaled Agile & almost all scaling frameworks are supported specifically tuned to SAFe .
CA Agile Central includes several applications but it also integrates well with Jira, Confluence, Jenkins, Eclipse, Subversion, IBM, HP, Salesforce.com and many other products to allow users to organize projects to their specifications. So you can still use Jira at a team level & CA Agile Central at the program & portfolio level for efficient tracking & management.
The custom tags are very helpful in segregating the user stories based on the project needs. Even though it's a very small feature, it is very effective ( you will realize why specifically if you are using Jira).
CA Central Agile enables agile delivery with ease and provides comprehensive features to track time-boxes, Work In Progress items of the forecast increments.
Backlog management is hassle free since you can either drag and drop your user stories to the desired position on the backlog, or change a setting and manually enter priorities as a number.
Highly customizable: we were able to organize our test cases in unique ways that made our work easier.
Connectivity with Jira: being able to pull requirements information in from Jira was a big point for us.
Standalone tool: Being a standalone tool on a dedicated server, we were able to have access to our tests regardless of whether our Jira server was down.
User management is pretty basic and could be better. For example more filters and reports and more ability to do mass updates.
The report generator is very, very basic and is not WYSIWYG. It has limited filters to generate reports. Often a Scrum master will need to export data to Excel or a tool like Crystal Reports to get enhanced reporting capability.
In requirements , we can't add multiple test cases at once, or search multiple cases at once, need to do one by one. Here actually qtest needs to improve.
Linking cloud hosted qtest and on-premise TOSCA is very difficult especially when you are working with client system with security wall. It requires tunnelling software which is not recommended.
Great UI, recent refresh was terrific. Great graphs and metrics, inline editing for updates, and a multitude of views on sprint progress make for a great team collaboration experience. There is also an active community and forums so that if you do need help, it is readily available
The screens render relatively quickly but many actions that you would expect to require a single click require multiple clicks and pop-up windows. The extra windows and clicks make the product feel ponderous.
I've had to use support only one time and my issue was eventually resolved but not because of my ticket--because others complained about the functionality taken away so they brought it back. My ticket was never answered or addressed. So I can't really say much for the support factor for Rally.
It more or less confirmed that we are using it the way they had in mind. We were hoping for a epiphany in terms of how we could use it better.
They also want to be a go to source for agile processes and have an online resource center. It’s not that great but had a couple of nuggets. It hasn’t really helped us too much and we are not too far off from the classical interpretation of agile.
I would recommend training, in particular for organizations that multiple on-going projects. The product seems optimized for larger, more complex teams and getting proper training on how to configure, administer and use the system would be beneficial
Implementation of RALLY services and program satisfaction among various group,... 1) Dev Outcomes: How were our resiliencies, development, learning & practitioners “make them do the work,” but that they ask you to do it “in a way like before. 2) The Ops group: Just wish to make sure any change won't break current production envirements All the stake holders has to be on the same page
It was a close race between Jama, JIRA and Rally. We decided to go for Jama as a requirements management tool and use Rally for Agile projects. The cost was another factor that made us select Rally.
All of them offer formidable solutions in the test management realm, but each one caters to different niche and need. qTest distinguishes itself with its deep integration capabilities, especially with Agile and DevOps tools, enabling streamlined CI/CD process. Its modern, user-centric interface contrasts with ALM's more dated appearance and complex setup. While TestRail provides a clean user experience and caters to a broad spectrum of business, qTest's scalability, from SMBs to large enterprises, stands out. PractiTest's cloud-based solution is geared towards mid-sized companies, but qTest's flexibility, advanced analytics, and robust reporting grant teams actionable insights. qTest' approach to a more holistic test management closely aligning with modern software development practices
it helped organizing many of the processes management use to communicate tasks with engineers, and provided detailed charts on the speed/blockage during any iteration
with time Rally became the main tool we used to track and report tasks/defects in our projects, but frequent service outages made it very hard to continue consider as a reliable solution
too much features is good, but for engineers a few features (User Stories section, iterations, defects, and Kanban boards) are necessary and the rest is just noise
Better organization and centralization of test cases has led to more cohesive team collaboration
Speed to delivery, deployments to production, are mostly maintained
Performance issues have led to testing delays requiring the team to switch to other methods which contributed to QA bottleneck issues and sometimes even missed sprint commitments
