We performed a comparison between Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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 code coverage."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable features of TFS are the test plans. We can reproduce reusable test plans in test automation. We have a lot of queries and this feature is very useful."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature from my point of view is project management, which includes user stories as well as task management."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"It is a stable solution."
"It's user friendly. We haven't had any issues so far. It's flexible. If we need something, we can always contact the owner in our headquarters to make a configuration."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
"We are also using Microsoft Teams. The two products function separately. There is not enough collaboration between Microsoft Teams and TFS."
"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."
"TFS should allow more integration with different platforms."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"The usability of TFS is not that great."
"The user interface could be improved to make it simpler and increase usability."
"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 like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 15th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 4 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". 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". Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer and Jira, 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 and best Test Management Tools 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.