We performed a comparison between Atlassian ALM 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."This solution fits very well into our agile product management environment."
"The main power of this tool is the integration between the different products of the Atlassian suite. We have good integration with work management with Java. This is the major strength from this provider."
"The most valuable feature is the Scrum board."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"The initial setup is fairly easy."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is integration."
"The solution's iteration board is good because you can track all your work with it."
"For what I need TFS for, I have never run into any limitation."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"We use TFS for forecast management."
"There is room for improvement in the high-level project management."
"The reports are not really customizable, which is something that they should improve on."
"The automation for scheduling software and doing software tests should be simplified because it's complex and too rigid."
"There are many things that I cannot do, and I have a lot of bugs."
"Its pricing could be improved."
"The usability of TFS is not that great."
"Currently, we are looking for a solution with which we can incorporate third-party development sites or third-party project teams into the system. Because it is on-premise, it is a bit problematic because we need to have a VPN or something else in the system. A cloud-based solution would be better for us, and that's what we are looking for. Our biggest problem is the external connection, which, of course, is limited by our own IT. It would be good to have some kind of publishing service for this external connection. It might be there, and it might be that our IT is making it impossible for us. Its template editor could be easier to use. Currently, customizing the project templates according to your needs requires some work."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"We encounter issues with backups."
"It has been really dated. When you start to work more in an agile environment, it is not really that flexible. They tried to replicate the look and feel of Jira, but it is not quite there. It was nice to use in the past, but it is not as flexible now with the changing development environments and methodologies."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
Atlassian ALM is ranked 17th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Atlassian ALM is rated 7.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Atlassian ALM writes "Scrum board feature is highly valuable and handles different user volumes". 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". Atlassian ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational ALM, Polarion ALM and Rally Software, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and Digital.ai Agility. See our Atlassian ALM 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.