Cisco Ethernet Switches typically provide a high return on investment due to centralized administration, reduced equipment, and lower management time. Users report a low failure rate and long lifespan contribute to positive returns. Although some have not observed immediate gains, the performance generally leads to a rewarding investment. While renewal costs and scalability might affect returns, most users find Cisco Ethernet Switches' longevity and management efficiency offer substantial financial benefits.

Most users leverage Cisco Ethernet Switches in an on-premises setup. Only a few utilize a hybrid cloud configuration, while even fewer opt for a private cloud environment. On-premises deployment is the predominant choice among users.

Users advise others to ensure an understanding of network requirements and consider the budget before choosing Cisco Ethernet Switches. Engage knowledgeable personnel for configuration and evaluate infrastructure needs for scaling. Cisco Ethernet Switches are praised for reliability, performance, and extensive features but are noted as costly. Users suggest exploring alternative brands for budget-friendly options. They rate Cisco highly for stability and performance, recommending its use for enterprises with available resources for future expansion and support.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are considered stable by users, with many praising their long-term reliability and minimal issues. Reports highlight dependable performance, easy maintenance, and no crashes or glitches. Some users have encountered minor firmware or memory problems, but these are rare occurrences. Widely regarded for their durability and consistent functionality over years, users often rate stability between eight to ten out of ten, underscoring their satisfaction with Cisco's robust design and reliability.

Cisco Ethernet Switches face several challenges including high costs, complex licensing, and the need for GUI enhancements. Users desire improved integration with third-party products, broader security features, and easier configuration options. Many also report frequent software bugs and the need for more intuitive interfaces. Licensing changes and additional costs for advanced features add to user dissatisfaction, and there is a call for enhanced technical support and supply chain improvements.

<p>Cisco Ethernet Switches provide reliable and stable connectivity with a low failure rate, facilitating robust network infrastructure that users can depend on.</p>

<p>Technical support from Cisco is highly regarded, offering quick responses and effective solutions, which enhances the user experience and ensures operational continuity.</p>

<p>The hardware of Cisco Ethernet Switches is noted for its robustness and durability, capable of handling extensive operational demands and lasting for many years without the need for frequent replacements.</p>

<p>Cisco Ethernet Switches are highly scalable, supporting the expansion of network operations seamlessly, which is crucial for growing businesses and large enterprises.</p>

<p>The switches offer advanced features such as VLAN mapping and multicast support, which improve network efficiency and are beneficial for complex network setups.</p>

Users have been utilizing Cisco Ethernet Switches for a range of 2 to 31 years.

Cisco Ethernet Switches offer valuable features like power-saving design, MACSec encryption, StackPower, and efficient QoS. They provide excellent performance, stability, and manageability with advanced routing, remote management, VLAN capabilities, and layer-2 encryption. High availability and resistance to temperature changes enhance their reliability. They support seamless network expansion, easy configuration, robust security, and quality technical support. Their network virtualization, automation with DNA Center, and versatile hardware make them a preferred choice for organizations.

Organizations primarily use Cisco Ethernet Switches for connectivity in LANs and internet routing, accessing aggregation, IP routing, and data centers. They handle network infrastructure tasks, manage local area networks, and improve latency. These switches support multiple environments like enterprise, small businesses, government offices, and educational institutions. Common functionalities include VLAN tagging and security enhancements. Users benefit from network traffic management, endpoint connectivity, and structured deployments in data centers and campus networks.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are widely recognized for their high scalability, allowing easy expansion by adding new modules or stacking switches. Users frequently highlight its capability to accommodate diverse network sizes, efficiently supporting thousands of users. While some models may present scaling challenges, many appreciate the flexibility and broad range of options. Cost is a noted concern, but the overall perception is that Cisco Ethernet Switches are highly adaptable for varying organizational needs.

Users evaluated options like HP, Dell, 3Com, Mikrotik, Schneider, D-Link, Huawei, Meraki, Ubiquiti, Ruckus, Fortinet, Juniper, Extreme Networks, Aruba, NETGEAR, ComNet, EtherWAN, GarrettCom, and Arista alongside Cisco Ethernet Switches. Huawei's affordability, Ruckus's cost benefits, Fortinet's interface, Ubiquiti's enterprise level applicability, Juniper's simplicity, and HP's ease of use were considerations. Cisco's CLI, support, and documentation stability supported decision-making.

Cisco Ethernet Switches improve network reliability and availability, enhancing productivity and return on investment. Organizations benefit from streamlined IOS, modularity, and industrial flexibility. These switches offer stable connectivity, simplify network management, and ensure high security. They facilitate project scalability, ensure efficient communication, and provide redundancy. Network structure is improved with better management, fewer failure points, and robust operation. Connectivity speeds and wireless capabilities are enhanced, reducing maintenance loads and promoting focus on core activities.

Users transitioned to OpenText ALM/Quality Center for comprehensive coverage, integration, and unified management, leaving behind less capable tools.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center implementations use in-house, vendor, or combined teams, emphasizing expertise, capability, and effective collaboration.

Organizations prefer on-premises deployment for OpenText ALM, with Public Cloud as the second choice, over other cloud options.

OpenText ALM setup is generally straightforward but varies due to enterprise needs, requiring expertise and potentially complicating upgrades.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center's support is inconsistent, with varied user experiences, prompting reliance on internal, third-party, or premier support.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center streamlines test management, defect tracking, and automation, centralizing reporting for effective QA collaboration and project visibility.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center supports large user bases and diverse projects efficiently, despite occasional license and performance issues.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center offers robust traceability, integration, and scalability for efficient project oversight, test management, and defect tracking.

Evaluate OpenText ALM/Quality Center's costs and benefits, recommending it for large enterprises while considering customization, integration, and governance.

OpenText ALM faces high costs, outdated UI, limited compatibility, cumbersome reporting, and integration issues, needing broader platform flexibility.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center has been utilized by users for varying periods, from several months to more than 20 years.

{"quote":"Scalability is rated eight out of ten.","quality_score":"3","sentiment_score":"7"}

{"quote":"Stability is rated as eight out of ten.","quality_score":"3","sentiment_score":"7"}

OpenText ALM/Quality Center enhances project management by improving testing efficiency, collaboration, traceability, and offering significant time savings.

{"quote":"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel, allowing us to download reports easily.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"8"}

{"quote":"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"3"}

OpenText ALM/Quality Center's high costs make it challenging for smaller companies, promoting a shift to cheaper or open-source options.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is stable with occasional issues; patching and updates enhance performance and minimize downtime.

Users evaluated various tools, favoring Jira for agile while ALM remained preferred for comprehensive requirements and integrations.

OpenText ALM centralizes test management, enhancing efficiency, collaboration, and productivity with automation, real-time insights, and defect reduction.

5.0

3.33333333333

8

8.0

{"quote":"Improvements are needed so that the system can continue running without creating a new run.","score":"10"}

{"quote":"Only the first user can click 'run' during testing, and subsequent users have to click 'continue manual run', which can create reporting errors.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"There are cases where the system does not meet our reporting requirements.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Allowing us to download reports easily.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"It is beneficial for managing testing data and has integration with Excel.","score":"8"}

Organizations previously used various tools before adopting OpenText ALM / Quality Center. LoadRunner, Quality Center, HP testing tools, IBM RTM, TFS, and Bugzilla were considered. Alternatives like JIRA and Excel spreadsheets were noted but lacked comprehensive capabilities. Some employed open-source solutions or relied on manual processes using Word documents. Past preferences included IBM Rational, Rally, and Compuware tools. Transitioning to ALM was favored for its complete package, integration, better reporting, and comprehensive application lifecycle management.

OpenText ALM/Quality Center is regarded as a costly tool for enterprise use. Users report it is expensive compared to alternatives, with high licenses and setup costs, but also acknowledge its comprehensive features and benefits for large projects. Many recommend negotiating prices with vendors and considering concurrent licensing to optimize costs. The tool's pricing remains a notable factor in decision-making, prompting some to explore more affordable or open-source alternatives.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive test management, seamless integration with various tools, real-time collaboration features, and robust reporting capabilities, ensuring superior quality control and streamlined processes for software development teams.

<p>OpenText ALM / Quality Center enhances defect tracking and test management with customizable modules and integration with HPE products, boosting process efficiency. Users value its traceability features linking requirements and defects for visibility, while reporting aids management oversight. Despite storing test cases centrally, challenges include client installation on Internet Explorer only, lacking agile tool support, and cross-project reporting constraints. The platform's BPT is time-consuming and lacks intuitiveness for novices.</p>

<p>OpenText ALM / Quality Center lacks support for browsers other than Internet Explorer, making it inaccessible to users on other platforms.</p><p>There are significant challenges with integration and scalability, especially when trying to adopt Agile and DevOps methodologies.</p><p>Reporting capabilities are perceived as rigid and outdated, with limited support for cross-project visibility.</p><p>User-friendliness and documentation require improvement, as it is not intuitive for business users unfamiliar with the system.</p><p>The installation process is cumbersome due to the need for client-side components and requires administrative rights.</p>

Implementation of OpenText ALM / Quality Center was handled by both in-house teams and vendors. The internal teams were often experienced, with strong expertise in ALM. Vendors provided knowledgeable support, though some found vendor costs high or lacked experienced consultants. A mix of in-house and vendor teams was common, and many organizations shifted to internal management after initial vendor setups. Проект execution varied with in-house teams often preferred for ongoing updates and administration.

Initial setup of OpenText ALM / Quality Center is largely seen as straightforward and easy, though some encountered complexity due to new environments, infrastructure, or system requirements. Setting it up often requires coordination and planning, particularly for larger organizations or when specific customizations are needed. While many found installation simple with clear instructions and guides, others experienced difficulties related to security, permissions, or database configurations, indicating a need for experienced personnel or external support.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center customer service varies from prompt and responsive to slow and inadequate, with mixed experiences based on vendor partnerships. Users rate customer service between 5 to 10. Technical support is generally knowledgeable but can be inconsistent; ratings vary from low to high. Local support availability affects response times. Users with premium support services receive faster resolutions, while those relying on standard support may experience longer delays and less expertise.

Customer service and support for OpenText ALM / Quality Center is generally rated between 5 to 8 out of 10, with a mix of positive, neutral, and some negative experiences.

Users have not universally measured the ROI from OpenText ALM / Quality Center, yet many report benefits like improved project visibility, better testing standards, and significant time savings. Several users state they experience better collaboration and traceability, enhancing project efficiency. Despite some considering it costly, users often find the value it delivers justifies this investment. Time and cost savings, automation benefits, and reduced defects contribute to their positive experience.

On-premises deployment is the most commonly used model among users of OpenText ALM / Quality Center. Many organizations prefer this method. Private Cloud options are chosen by a few, while a limited number adopt Hybrid Cloud setups. Public Cloud usage is also present but less prevalent compared to on-premises deployment. Overall, there is a clear inclination towards on-premises installations among users, highlighting a preference for maintaining infrastructure within their physical locations.

Most users find OpenText ALM / Quality Center stable, though some experience occasional issues like idle crashes, network reliance, and performance slowdowns. Stability often improves with proper hardware and setup. Newer versions show enhancements, though updates can be challenging. Many appreciate its reliability, noting rare downtimes or glitches. Hosting environments and number of users impact performance. Some highlight the need for technical expertise to maintain smooth functionality. Overall, users rate it highly for stability.

Users advise others to evaluate cost and explore other tools before choosing OpenText ALM / Quality Center. They recommend thorough installation planning and customization to match business needs. It's valuable for large organizations, ensuring test case management and integration with other tools, but less suited for small companies due to its expense. Users appreciate its reporting and traceability features but note that it doesn't fully support Agile processes. Proper training and support are essential for maximizing benefits.

Users have relied on OpenText ALM / Quality Center for a wide duration, ranging from less than a year to over 20 years.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center requires enhancements in licensing flexibility and cost efficiency, reporting capabilities, and browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer. Its UI is outdated, and project tracking can be cumbersome. Users experience challenges with version control, integration with Agile and third-party tools, and tedious client installations. The system's slow performance and lack of intuitive usability add to user frustration. Overall, its adaptability to modern methodologies and administrative ease need significant improvement.

<p>OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers robust defect management features that are highly beneficial for ongoing projects.</p>

<p>The integration capabilities with other tools enhance its functionality, particularly in quality and speed of operations.</p>

<p>Test management is effectively handled, allowing for comprehensive tracking and reporting of test statuses and results, including automated testing elements.</p>

<p>Customization options are extensive, facilitating adjustments to fields and workflows across projects.</p>

<p>Requirements management and traceability features enable clear visibility and tracking, ensuring good coverage and alignment with testing processes.</p>

Organizations primarily use OpenText ALM / Quality Center for test management, defect tracking, and requirements mapping. They consolidate testing processes, perform regression testing, and manage test cycles with a centralized repository. It supports both manual and automated testing and integrates with tools like UFT. Users utilize it for scheduling, executing, and reporting test results, ensuring visibility and traceability across projects. This tool assists in managing application lifecycle phases efficiently across various industries.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center's most valuable features include comprehensive traceability, seamless integration with automation tools, and a centralized repository for test cases, defects, and requirements. Its intuitive interface, robust reporting capabilities, and flexible customization options enhance user accessibility. Large organizations benefit from its scalability, flexible licensing models, and strong data integrity. The capabilities for defect management, dashboard analytics, and integration with MS Excel simplify project tracking and ensure efficient test execution.

Users evaluated various tools including Jira, IBM CLM, Microsoft Test Manager, Bugzilla, TestLink, and SpiraTest. Some preferred integrating SAP Solution Manager with HP ALM. Concerns involved setup complexity, cost, and browser compatibility. Tools like Jira and TFS offer alternatives for Agile methodologies but lacked comprehensive features found in OpenText ALM. Users considered functionality, support, and ease of use, opting for tools that met specific business needs or aligned with existing workflows and familiarity.

Users frequently mention that OpenText ALM / Quality Center offers excellent scalability. It supports large numbers of users and projects, adapting well to organizational demands. While some report occasional performance issues during high loads, most users find it reliable with the right infrastructure. Licensing concerns are noted, yet enterprises experience successful scaling across global teams. Broad adoption and versatility make it suitable for various contexts, demonstrating robust functionality in diverse environments.

OpenText ALM / Quality Center centralizes test management, improving traceability and test coverage. It standardizes testing processes, enabling better collaboration and faster defect resolution. Maintains all testing assets in a single repository, facilitating easier reporting and integration with automation tools. Provides real-time project insights, supporting regression testing, defect tracking, and Agile methods. Enhances efficiency by reducing manual effort and ensures compliance with regulatory requirements. Facilitates communication among global teams, integrating with other applications for seamless project management.

Users favored Huawei and Juniper for cost-effectiveness but valued Cisco's documentation, leading to switches despite appreciating its reliability.

Users evaluated various options including HP, Dell, Mikrotik, Huawei, Juniper, and Aruba. Huawei offered competitive pricing, HP was known for simplicity, and Ubiquiti was favored for affordability. Cisco was preferred for its support, documentation, and feature set despite higher costs. Some users initially used brands like 3Com, Dlink, and Ruckus but moved to Cisco for its reliability and stability in critical environments.

Users evaluated tools like IBM CLM, JIRA, and ALM, prioritizing functionality, cost, integration, agility, and reporting features.

Users considered IBM CLM, JIRA, Bugzilla, Microsoft Test Manager, and SpiraTest. Many explored open-source options but favored HPE's integration capabilities. OpenText ALM / Quality Center was chosen for its comprehensive functionality despite alternatives like Tricentis Tosca, RadView, and Silk being evaluated. JIRA provided agile benefits while Microsoft TFS lacked in features. Cost and integration were key factors in decision-making. Some also reviewed Test Director's evolution into ALM while recognizing competition like Micro Focus and IBM.

<p>Wandz.ai (Formerly Namogoo) leverages advanced algorithms to optimize customer journeys, focusing on increasing conversion rates and reducing churn. It provides businesses with tools to enhance online experiences effectively.</p><p>Wandz.ai focuses on boosting customer engagement and retention by safeguarding the customer journey from external disruptions that can hinder sales performance. By empowering companies with real-time data and insights, it enables tailored interventions that maximize user satisfaction and loyalty, creating a seamless and engaging shopping experience. Through understanding unique user behaviors and motivations, Wandz.ai supports businesses in refining their digital strategies to better align with customer expectations.</p><strong>What features define Wandz.ai?</strong><ul>
<li>Customer Journey Hijacking Prevention: Protects against interruptions due to unauthorized ads</li>
<li>Real-time Data: Provides instant insights to adapt strategies swiftly</li>
<li>Personalized Experiences: Tailors interactions based on individual behavior</li>
<li>Integration Capabilities: Effortlessly integrates with existing platforms</li>
<li>Comprehensive Analytics: Delivers detailed reports to inform decision-making</li>
</ul><strong>What ROI should users expect?</strong><ul>
<li>Increased Conversion Rates: Enhances the likelihood of purchase through optimized journeys</li>
<li>Improved Customer Satisfaction: Boosts retention by personalizing visits</li>
<li>Reduced Cart Abandonment: Minimizes revenue loss by addressing purchase barriers</li>
<li>Data-Driven Decisions: Informs strategies with actionable insights</li>
</ul><p>Wandz.ai is particularly effective in e-commerce where customer journey integrity is essential. Industries like online retail see a marked improvement in conversion rates through the reduction of unauthorized ad disruptions and the application of personalized marketing strategies, thereby increasing user satisfaction and retention.</p>

<p></p>

Wandz.ai (Formerly Namogoo) enhances conversion rates by offering personalized experiences. It provides valuable features like real-time data analysis and automated insights. Users mention a need for better customization options to tailor the platform to specific requirements, allowing more flexibility in its use.

{"quote":"We also paid for workflow licenses, which allowed up to 250 concurrent users.","quality_score":"8","sentiment_score":"7"}

{"quote":"We had an enterprise license, which allowed unlimited users and a number of workflow licenses.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"8"}

Entities switched to Hyland OnBase for its cost-effectiveness and flexibility, favoring it over more expensive platforms like OpenText.

Hyland OnBase's complex implementation involved various partners, with Fiserv crucially supporting and one partner rated an eight.

5.25

{"quote":"We found the size of images to be a restriction, though this may have been due to the API used rather than the Hyland application.","quality_score":"7","sentiment_score":"3"}

{"quote":"Users appreciated the user interface and extensive integration capabilities.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"Hyland OnBase appeared more robust compared to Alfresco, but this perception might be influenced by deployment and configuration differences.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"Integrating Hyland OnBase with our systems enabled us to automate document designs and templates, which was extremely helpful in the finance and banking industry.","quality_score":"9","sentiment_score":"9"}

5.85

8.5

Hyland OnBase offers flexibility, security, integration, and comprehensive features with scalability and stability, supporting extensive content management.

Most users favor on-premises deployment for Hyland OnBase, showing a preference for managing infrastructure over cloud services.

Hyland OnBase setup complexity varies; straightforward for some, challenging with customizations, ranging from days to six months.

Hyland OnBase is used for document management, HR archiving, financial storage, healthcare apps, and on-premises deployment for security.

Hyland OnBase's support is praised for availability but can require pressure, extra cost, and experiences delays in ticket resolution.

Hyland OnBase supports scalable growth for businesses, efficiently managing increased users and documents while maintaining performance and enterprise workflows.

Deploy skilled personnel, understand OnBase tools, start small, consider cloud, ensure training, praised for security and integration.

{"quote":"Our vendor relationship facilitated integration with our system and offered additional service beyond the Hyland OnBase product.","score":"9"}

{"quote":"The Fiserv team was helpful, although instances existed where their database was tricky to manage.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"We primarily worked with Fiserv for technical support and not directly with Hyland.","score":"7"}

Hyland OnBase needs UI updates, pricing adjustments, better training, modernized web client, improved support, security, and AI-driven features.

Hyland OnBase is a stable, reliable, low-maintenance application, performing smoothly with correct hardware and adequate RAM setup.

{"quote":"Providing traceability and data security.","score":"7"}

{"quote":"Hyland OnBase was a stable solution that worked effectively for us.","score":"8"}

{"quote":"We also paid for workflow licenses, which allowed up to 250 concurrent users.","score":"9"}

Users have varied experience with Hyland OnBase, ranging from six months to over 12 years of utilization.

{"quote":"As we had an enterprise license, we were not limited in terms of user access.","score":"8"}

Hyland OnBase offers modular pricing, seen as costly, with varied licensing options and potential regional pricing adjustments needed.

<p>Hyland OnBase is a remarkable tool known for stability and scalability, offering excellent technical support year-round. Its cloud integrability and security features provide secure document access. The retention module efficiently manages records. OnBase offers flexibility for diverse business needs, though it is considered costly in Latin America. Challenges include complex workflows, difficult initial setup, and OCR issues. Improvements are needed for stability with external document reception and BPM capabilities to maintain competitiveness.</p>

Hyland OnBase improves efficiency by automating processes, offering low-code customization, and enhancing data visibility for finance and banking.