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."Its ability to automate release deployments, streamline release scope, and reduce the cost of and time for deployment."
"The second valuable aspect is its capability to drive external systems like deployment automation engines or to integrate with Agile Central."
"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."
"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."
"Its extensive range of available connectors eliminates the need for manual code writing when implementing solutions, thus reducing coding efforts."
"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."
"There are a lot of helpful features available for tracking dependencies."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the CI/CD pipeline, and the testing automation."
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"We can eliminate some of the middleman processes."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use and performance."
"One of the main features is the user interface is very good."
"We are able to generate many different types of reports from Azure."
"Everything that's related to the pipeline has been very good."
"CDD and RA should be two modules in the same product. They do not automatically “talk” to each other. and they require endpoint definition."
"The product's development has been stopped. It focuses on maintaining existing products."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Automic Continuous Delivery Director can improve the integrations. We have 25 but would like more."
"Reporting could be better. We would like to see how many applications are onboarded in DevOps and in which phase they are. We would like to know for how many applications we have done only the repository, but we have not yet done the build pipeline or deploy pipeline. Currently, there is no such report. We have to figure it out ourselves. There is no way to check how many applications are completing their build pipelines, how many applications are completing their deploy pipeline, how many are ready to use, and how many pipelines are working."
"They could provide clearer guidance on deployment practices for the product."
"The UI, the user experience, is challenging for newcomers."
"Compared to JIRA, I think Azure DevOps is missing some management elements, like some reporting features. It would be helpful if some things were clearer when we're adding attributes. For instance, sometimes we want to add some categories or attributes, and it's not so easy."
"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."
"They should expand it from just a PC, software, or server development platform to other kinds of software or engineering systems so that it is not necessarily built around a normal PC with a server. I would like to see the ability to write my own scripts in my own compiled program or online. Right now, there are things that you can do in the user interface, but you can't do them programmatically and vice versa. I want to see them both. If I can do it in a script, I should be able to do it from the user interface, and if I can do it in the user interface, I should be able to do it in a script."
"Something that could be improved is the initial setup with the integration of ReadyAPI."
"It should be easier to manage Licenses especially because it's in the cloud."
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.
