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 most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"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 of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is that it keeps the code secure while working collaboratively in a team of four or five individuals."
"TFS’s test management capability without the expensive licensing has large gaps. Users will be unable to access performance testing and coded UI testing capabilities."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"It's is a very stable solution."
"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."
"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."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"I understand Microsoft is phasing out TFS in favor of Git, so I would steer anyone interested in TFS to look into Git."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"Sometimes we feel that it need more CPU, and RAMs on TFS server, either we implemented the hardware with the product minimum requirements."
"The user interface could be improved to make it simpler and increase usability."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"Its pricing could be improved."
"Not all of the functionality, which is exposed by the command line interface (tf.exe) is available in the Visual Studio GUI."
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 93 reviews. OpenText AccuRev is rated 8.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText AccuRev writes "Good packaging features, but reporting is limited". 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 Jama Connect, 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.