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."
"Basically, the capacity to construct various products is something I find handy."
"The tool's installation is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is that it keeps the code secure while working collaboratively in a team of four or five individuals."
"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."
"TFS' most valuable feature is the triage process. It is a robust solution that is easy to use."
"I like its MTM (Microsoft Test Manager) section which gives us options to create various test plans and add test cases into it."
"The API for managing TFS programmatically is very powerful, you can listen on work items changes by TFS events."
"As far as queries are concerned, creating, grading, or customizing the queries as a primary requirement is very easy to do."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
"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."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"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!"
"The manageability and performance of the product are areas of concern where improvements are required."
"More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively."
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, 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.