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 is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"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."
"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."
"I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"The most valuable features are test case writing and bug tracking."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"Stability is okay."
"We use TFS for forecast management."
"Version Control: TFS offers both the centralized “TFVC” version control technology as well as the distributed “Git” version control technology."
"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."
"The execution of test cases could stand improvement."
"TFS's CI/CD, project pipelines, and management development could be improved."
"They have room for improvement in merging the source code changes for multiple developers across files. It is very good at highlighting the changes that the source code automatically does not know how to handle, but it's not very good at reporting the ones that it did automatically. There are times when we have source code that gets merged, and we lose the changes that we expected to happen. It can get a little confusing at times. They can just do a little bit better on the merging of changes for multiple developers."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"Since it is Microsoft, it is technology agnostic, thus it does not really fit into various different technologies in the organization."
"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!"
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"The solution should have better dashboards."
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.