We performed a comparison between TFS and Zeenyx AscentialTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."It's user friendly. We haven't had any issues so far. It's flexible. If we need something, we can always contact the owner in our headquarters to make a configuration."
"I like its MTM (Microsoft Test Manager) section which gives us options to create various test plans and add test cases into it."
"The traceability is valuable. While managing the workflows, it was always nice to have that traceability from requirements and all the way through design. It integrates with Microsoft Test Manager, and you can have everything that is related to a requirement attached to it."
"Basically, the capacity to construct various products is something I find handy."
"Complete integration with VS IDE and Office tools: This give us a possibility of high-level automation, thus minimizing human error."
"The most valuable feature is integration, particularly if you have a .NET application."
"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."
"The most valuable features of TFS are bug reporting and its high performance."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"I understand Microsoft is phasing out TFS in favor of Git, so I would steer anyone interested in TFS to look into Git."
"TFS and MTM have their own style of working and they are different from other tools like Jira or TestRail, which are simpler and easy to use."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
"TFS isn't a great tool if you're on the cloud."
"The usability of TFS is not that great."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"Microsoft should discontinue the use of SharePoint as I don’t really see any value add to TFS, document management features can be included in TFS web portal itself, if required!"
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
TFS is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 93 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 13 reviews. TFS is rated 8.0, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, TestRail and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.