We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a stable solution."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"The API for managing TFS programmatically is very powerful, you can listen on work items changes by TFS events."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"The solution is very much stable."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"Some of the valuable features are version control and the ability to create different collections in terms of segregating the authorization for teams who connect to small projects."
"I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"The biggest value-add is the solution integrates well with most Microsoft products."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I'd like to see some kind of visualization tool for TFS that would make life much easier."
"The tool needs improvement in stability."
"The reporting functionality is something that they should work on."
"TFS needs to be stable."
"The price could be cheaper."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"TFS is scalable with different Microsoft tools for test management but it is not scalable with other third-party tools."
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Has good technical support services, but the migration process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TFS writes "It is helpful for scheduled releases and enforcing rules, but it should be better at merging changes for multiple developers and retaining the historical information". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and OpenText ALM Octane, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and Polarion ALM. See our Codebeamer vs. TFS report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.