We performed a comparison between PTC Integrity 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."PTC Integrity has good stability."
"It's a good tool to manage software versions, update the status, and manage tasks."
"I have found that previously, the OEM sector was managing everything, possibly manually. However, with the introduction of the product, it has become much easier for customers to handle their products. Previously, customers were using different software to manage their products. However, PTC Integrity offers a solution for requirements management, test management, and even development to support live ticket management. So instead of using multiple software tools, we can use it for all these purposes."
"I personally like PTC Integrity because it provides everything within the software. You can store and access your data and perform various tasks. Compared to other products, I find it user-friendly, which can sometimes feel complex. I think PTC Integrity is user-friendly, making it nice to use. The tool is easier to learn."
"The tool is quite structured and has a good command set."
"We have been using it because it gives certain abilities in the automotive industry, such as auditing or keeping track of information."
"The most valuable feature is traceability starting from the requirements until the end of a project."
"We found the requirement management and the version control features to be the most useful for our client."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"Since it is a robust solution, I face no performance issues. Also, considering how well the implementation process of the solution was carried out, we never faced any issues while using the solution."
"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."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"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."
"It's is a very stable solution."
"The interface is good with TFS."
"Stability is okay."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"For complex businesses, the internal templates could have more flexibility and compatibility."
"From my experience over the years, I believe there might be room for improvement in PTC Integrity. While it's already a good product, it tends to be slower than other software. When it becomes bulky, it slows down even more, sometimes leading to crashes or hangs that require restarting the computer before being able to use PTC Integrity again. This has been my experience multiple times."
"It's not so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer."
"There are not enough reports. People would like to see something similar to what is available in JIRA."
"To be honest, the third controller system is kind of old. There are lots of transactional changes that have not been implemented in PTC. If you have a larger project, for example, whenever you give bits and need to change 10,000 files you can just commit them. But here the work style is a little more file based, so you'll have to take care of almost all the files individually. It's not a single commit like you do here, but rather you have to allocate time for each component or file that you want to check in or commit. That's a very big issue."
"We are unhappy because everything that we needed required customization and this is not a plug-and-play type of solution at all."
"The web version does not have all the functionalities of the non-web version. Administration and adding/removing fields, etc. cannot be done on the web version. People want solutions that are compatible with Android. I also want to have a version by which I can bulk edit all the fields."
"This solution is quite old and it is already being bundled as Azure DevOps Server."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
"Its pricing could be improved."
"The project management side should be addressed and the project and release planning should be somewhat extended."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"There are many things that I cannot do, and I have a lot of bugs."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
PTC Integrity is ranked 10th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 12 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. PTC Integrity is rated 7.4, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of PTC Integrity writes "Helps to create tasks, change requests and documentation". 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". PTC Integrity is most compared with Codebeamer, Polarion ALM, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our PTC Integrity 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.