We performed a comparison between Polarion 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."It meets with everybody's needs without having to grab plugins."
"The most valuable feature is the function of the ALM system."
"Polarion ALM's integration is very good and easy to use."
"It is a very stable solution."
"It offers good performance."
"The tool helped us to more effectively and efficiently gather and structure the information (requirements, test plans, project management data, etc.), and share it with the involved stakeholders in a safe and change-controlled manner."
"I am impressed with the solution’s stability."
"The technical support is quite good."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The solution's iteration board is good because you can track all your work with it."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"Stability is okay."
"From the project management perspective, the tool is efficiently managing teams by giving management information, such as reports, graphs, velocity, capacity, etc."
"Version Control: TFS offers both the centralized “TFVC” version control technology as well as the distributed “Git” version control technology."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"TFS's best features include user-friendly test management, bug reporting, and ID assignment."
"The weak point of Polarion ALM software is about reporting and time for extraction of the data...The quality of reporting needs to improve."
"The solution needs to improve its user experience and graphics."
"The user interface is not yet optimized."
"Test management lacks an automated process."
"The solution's editing capabilities need improvement."
"The configuration aspect of the solution is not easy. A person needs a lot of programming knowledge in order to successfully handle the job."
"The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and a server-based application rather than client based."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"There should be management of the project built-in."
"The execution of test cases could stand improvement."
"This solution is quite old and it is already being bundled as Azure DevOps Server."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"The dashboard and the customization of dashboards is an area they have to work on."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
Polarion ALM is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Polarion ALM is rated 7.8, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Polarion ALM writes "Though needing an improvement in reporting and time for extraction of the data, its integration capabilities are good". 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". Polarion ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Codebeamer, PTC Integrity and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and Tricentis Tosca. See our Polarion 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.