We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure DevOps and Spinnaker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."All features are good. Pipelines feature is great, and Boards and Artifacts features are also really good. It is really good at what it does. It is very comprehensive, and it has some really great aspects to it. It is very easy. It is probably one of the easiest to use DevOps tools in the industry, and it is well integrated."
"The most valuable features are continuous integration and deployment, and simplicity."
"I found the Kanban board to be the most useful for my needs."
"The installation is straightforward. We can create a whole new organization in less than a day."
"Provides us with user histories."
"Azure enables us to create a staging environment through to a production environment in an easier way and then get the code and run that."
"We use all the DevOps features and services, like reports, Boards, Pipelines, Artifactory, etc. The interface is interactive and intuitive. The platform visuals and workflow are straightforward in Azure DevOps."
"The product is easy to use...It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Spinnaker is the rollback."
"There is a good community around the product that makes troubleshooting possible."
"There is room for improvement on the UI side, especially with merge requests. If we compare Azure DevOps to GitLab when it comes to branches and PRs (pull requests), GitLab has a better interface."
"As for improvement, the first one is pricing. For us, luckily because we are partners, it's free. Microsoft gold partners do not have to pay, but if you're not a partner, the product is very expensive."
"I can't think of any specific things at the moment, but I've run into things that I didn't like. I came across something that I wanted to be changed in DevOps, but I can't remember what it was. It was a particular feature I was looking for that I couldn't find."
"The solution could be made faster because it can be a little unnerving to browse through too many pages and press too many buttons."
"Reporting across multiple projects could be improved."
"The ability to extend work items was more flexible than it is now. Talking version control, one of our customers had some issues because they found it very difficult to manage more than 1000 repositories for one team project."
"It's too technical sometimes because it's meant for network developers. The CI/CD pipelines are not very easy to manage because it requires a lot of input. So it could be easier to manage."
"It would be great if I could integrate with a human resource type of software that could control timesheets."
"Spinnaker's configuration setup is too complicated and should be made easy."
"Log-wise, we need to understand why something has failed so that we can understand and try to fix it the moment the issue is reported. The solution could use more robust monitoring."
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 126 reviews while Spinnaker is ranked 7th in Release Automation with 2 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while Spinnaker is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Good support, helpful management capabilities, and great Kanban boards". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spinnaker writes "Good integrations, a helpful user community, and good reliability". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, whereas Spinnaker is most compared with AWS CodeDeploy, UrbanCode Deploy and Octopus Deploy. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. Spinnaker report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation 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.
