We performed a comparison between Automic Continuous Delivery Director and Microsoft Azure DevOps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature for me is the fact that you can easily design a pipeline to promote applications from a development environment up to a production environment, and the team can become autonomous in designing those pipelines."
"The most valuable features of Automic Continuous Delivery Director are the UI, release planning, and tracking, and you can do your soft and hard freeze through CDP."
"Its extensive range of available connectors eliminates the need for manual code writing when implementing solutions, thus reducing coding efforts."
"The second valuable aspect is its capability to drive external systems like deployment automation engines or to integrate with Agile Central."
"Its ability to automate release deployments, streamline release scope, and reduce the cost of and time for deployment."
"CDD is primarily used for showing end users (managers, business teams, project managers, and release managers) what is happening with each release. The status and reporting features are very important. Automation reduces time to deploy. It also allows us to do more with releases and testing prior to production, better guaranteeing a smooth deployment."
"Azure is an advantage when working with other Microsoft solutions."
"Azure enables us to create a staging environment through to a production environment in an easier way and then get the code and run that."
"It's got something that you won't find in other products."
"The solution is good for everything, including end-to-end planning and its deployment and testing."
"Version control practices have been perfect for us. It maintains a detailed history and is integrated with GitHub, which is also a Microsoft product. It is quite a game-changer."
"It is a really easy way to define all of the features that you need to deliver. You can link those features to epics and break them down into user stories. You can also assign the user stories into sprints for doing your product improvement planning."
"Typically the sprints themselves and managing the tasks have essentially eliminated our need for reporting."
"The most valuable feature is that we can run integrations with DevOps. From a QA perspective and a testing perspective, we can run those tests and integrate automation tools. Then we can run those tests as part of the deployment process. Every time we are deploying something, it automatically runs all the tests."
"The product's development has been stopped. It focuses on maintaining existing products."
"We would like to have a more user-friendly interface. It is already very friendly, but as soon as you start to have many applications with many tasks, the applications should be easier to manipulate on the screen."
"Reporting and dashboarding could be improved. Release pipelines should be creatable via templates as well as easily integrable/chained together. Visual navigation could also be improved when the pipelines become too large."
"Automic Continuous Delivery Director can improve the integrations. We have 25 but would like more."
"CDD and RA should be two modules in the same product. They do not automatically “talk” to each other. and they require endpoint definition."
"We have rolled out the SAFe model, but what we would like to have is better integration with Agile Central, for instance, or at least at the plugin level, where we would select only certain stories instead of many stories in the sprint."
"The UI, the user experience, is challenging for newcomers."
"The portfolio is one area where DevOps has room for improvement. Built-in reporting and visualization also could be better. We're using Power BI and Tableau to compile more complex reports and dashboards. Azure DevOps has some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities, but they're very simple. It's usually okay on the team level, but if you have to run a complex report, it's difficult and insufficient, so we use Power BI as an extension."
"When converting to DevOps, it was difficult to map."
"I have not been able to use the integration with automation features, such as test management automation, with a framework that is written in Java."
"The communication could work better, especially for the development team."
"It is not that intuitive. Sometimes, it is hard to find some of the functions. I would like to have an old-fashioned menu structure to be able to easily find things. Its environment setup is not very good. They should improve the way it is set up for different screens and make it easier to find functionalities and maintain team members."
"The solution is generally stable but not entirely issue-free."
"They do very frequent releases, there's a complete change in UI kind of stuff. Sometimes it feels like they change it too often."
More Automic Continuous Delivery Director Pricing and Cost Advice →
Automic Continuous Delivery Director is ranked 14th in Release Automation with 5 reviews while Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 127 reviews. Automic Continuous Delivery Director is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Automic Continuous Delivery Director writes "An automation solution to automate the entire release process but lacks development". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". Automic Continuous Delivery Director is most compared with , whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management. See our Automic Continuous Delivery Director vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
