We performed a comparison between OpenText AccuRev and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The solution is 100% scalable. It's much more scalable than the customer's capacity for implementing it. We do plan to increase usage ourselves."
"The most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"I like its MTM (Microsoft Test Manager) section which gives us options to create various test plans and add test cases into it."
"The most valuable features are related to source code management. Using TFS for source code management and being able to branch and have multiple developers work on the same projects is valuable. We can also branch and merge code back together."
"The tool's installation is straightforward."
"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."
"The API for managing TFS programmatically is very powerful, you can listen on work items changes by TFS events."
"TFS' most valuable feature is the triage process. It is a robust solution that is easy to use."
"It's an integrated system that includes all the information that we need to deliver our products smoothly and to track the progress of each piece of code."
"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."
"What I'm missing from the solution is a repository for the code. Something like Git, for example. Some sort of depository for the code that is embedded."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"In the next release, I would like to have a repository for the code which is embedded. Apart from that, it has everything I need."
"More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively."
"TFS is scalable with different Microsoft tools for test management but it is not scalable with other third-party tools."
"I would like to see TFS improve its web interface as there are some limitations with IDs and the integration behind it and with open-source tools like VS Code."
"The price could be cheaper."
"I'm looking for specific options that aren't currently available, such as active status, new status, or what's currently in progress."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"Since it is Microsoft, it is technology agnostic, thus it does not really fit into various different technologies in the organization."
Earn 20 points
OpenText AccuRev is ranked 23rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 27 reviews. OpenText AccuRev is rated 8.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. 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". OpenText AccuRev is most compared with , whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and OpenText ALM / Quality Center.
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.