Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Rational ClearQuest vs Microsoft Azure DevOps Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational ClearQuest
Ranking in Software Configuration Management
7th
Average Rating
7.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Defect Tracking (1st)
Microsoft Azure DevOps Server
Ranking in Software Configuration Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Software Configuration Management category, the mindshare of IBM Rational ClearQuest is 8.0%, up from 5.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure DevOps Server is 3.7%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Configuration Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Azure DevOps Server3.7%
IBM Rational ClearQuest8.0%
Other88.3%
Software Configuration Management
 

Featured Reviews

it_user808977 - PeerSpot reviewer
It can be adapted to any process flow
ClearQuest is a Defect Tracking system with a highly adaptable state machine together with an easy to use API, which can do all of the functions available in the GUI. This simplifies integration and automation of many steps is why the organization still uses a much older version, as there are no…
Sam Atkinc - PeerSpot reviewer
Has supported basic application hosting but lacks depth in planning and analytics features
I work for a pensions company and use Microsoft Azure DevOps Server as a user. I work with Azure Pipelines, though they are very minimal. When pushing out to production, my experience includes basic Terraform scripts, which I use for versioning. I am using Azure Boards for project management. My experience with Azure Boards is not helpful for planning or tracking. In comparison to the boards on GitHub and GitLab, they are quite minimal. It seems really stripped back, and the capabilities seem much weaker. We host models in Azure, which can sometimes have issues, but it is relatively good. The biggest problem is models being in the right domain for us - EU servers - it is a real lack of them. On a scale of 1-10, I would rate this solution a 7.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It can be adapted to any process flow and easily be integrated with other in-house tools using the ClearQuest API."
"The combination of a highly flexible state machine together with a platform independent API enables possibilities to automate many steps that in many systems are manual."
"The product is efficient."
"The solution is very stable."
"The product helps with version control. I can build, develop, test and deploy applications from a single platform."
"I am not familiar with any issues with respect to stability, and I have never seen Team System crash."
"Microsoft makes great products. They are quite robust."
"The solution has a good framework that is user friendly and scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the code management, where there is sharing of code for developers and it is distributed within the organization."
"Visual Studio Team System is the most powerful IDE available in the market."
 

Cons

"Lack of a modern web interface compared to other systems might discourage customers."
"The product should be priced better."
"I have seen customizations with Team System that allowed it to integrate into other ticketing systems like Jira, which would be a really nice feature to see."
"I would like to see the inclusion of more programming languages, especially better support for Java."
"Support response time could stand improvement."
"The user experience for the task assignment functionality, and more generally the software lifecycle development, needs to be improved."
"The tool's subscriptions are expensive for medium and small businesses. It works fine on Windows. However, it is not stable on other platforms."
"The technical support could be better."
"Accessibility switches available on the desktop should also be available on mobile devices for coding or developing on the go."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There is no fee for the solution's community version."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
"It is an open-source product from Microsoft."
"The price could be better."
"You can choose pricing from a variety of options. I would rate the product's pricing a six out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Configuration Management solutions are best for your needs.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
34%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Visual Studio Team System?
The disadvantage is the price is a problem. Because of the price, we cannot buy as many accounts as we want, so just some people in our team can use it. There are technical problems. They always ch...
What is your primary use case for Visual Studio Team System?
We are just a user for our IT project management.
 

Also Known As

Rational ClearQuest
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Atos SE, STM, Regence BlueCross BlueShield
Bluegarden A/S, Tracasa, Rabobank Group, Borusan Otomotiv, Arelik, Alfa Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational ClearQuest vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps Server and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.