We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"The most valuable feature is integration, particularly if you have a .NET application."
"Stability is okay."
"It is a stable solution."
"This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"TFS is very user-friendly."
"Complete integration with VS IDE and Office tools: This give us a possibility of high-level automation, thus minimizing human error."
"Microsoft's technical team is supportive."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"TFS needs to be stable."
"The tool needs improvement in stability."
"The price could be cheaper."
"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!"
"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
"I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
"In the next release, I would like them to include integration for various projects, similar to what JIRA has, and they could create this feature on the dashboard."
"More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively."
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Has good technical support services, but the migration process needs improvement". 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". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and OpenText ALM Octane, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and Tricentis Tosca. See our Codebeamer vs. TFS report.
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.