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 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 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 most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"Microsoft's technical team is supportive."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is integration."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"The interface is good with TFS."
"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."
"I have found almost all of the features valuable because it integrates well with your Microsoft products. If a client is using the entire Microsoft platform, then TFS would be definitely preferable. It integrates with the digital studio development environment as well."
"Build definitions and releases within the product. allow us to put our latest applications in the field."
"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."
"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."
"TFS isn't a great tool if you're on the cloud."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
"The execution of test cases could stand improvement."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"TFS should allow more integration with different platforms."
"Since the TFS was an on-prem solution, the private network accessibility was restricted."
"The overall reports in TFS could improve. Additionally, there should be an easier way to migrate from an older version to a newer one."
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 , 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.