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."We have been using it because it gives certain abilities in the automotive industry, such as auditing or keeping track of information."
"Complete traceability as per process requirements."
"The solution is flexible in terms of customization. You can bend and reformat it in many ways. You can also customize the APIs and public functions."
"PTC Integrity has good stability."
"The most valuable feature is traceability starting from the requirements until the end of a project."
"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 most valuable feature is the backlog."
"Team Foundation Server (TFS) is easy to use, and we have a complete trail and traceability. We also like the access control part."
"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 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."
"The most valuable features of TFS are bug reporting and its high performance."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"I feel that the test plan and test tools are more manageable in TFS."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"There are not enough reports. People would like to see something similar to what is available in JIRA."
"It's not easy to plan on this solution and it's not user-friendly. The interface should be more like a web interface. It's not easy to use."
"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."
"For complex businesses, the internal templates could have more flexibility and compatibility."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"It's not so customizable. Compared to other tools, defining user stories is a slightly more cumbersome process as an ALM engineer."
"We are unhappy because everything that we needed required customization and this is not a plug-and-play type of solution at all."
"The tool's web-based UI needs improvement. Some functionalities don't work yet, and querying items is slow. Also, it's not in the cloud yet. I don't know if they'll do it in the future because they already have core agreements with customers. If they offer these functionalities, customers will likely buy their product."
"The solution should have better dashboards."
"We are also using Microsoft Teams. The two products function separately. There is not enough collaboration between Microsoft Teams and TFS."
"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."
"There are many things that I cannot do, and I have a lot of bugs."
"TFS should allow more integration with different platforms."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"I'm looking for specific options that aren't currently available, such as active status, new status, or what's currently in progress."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
PTC Integrity is ranked 12th 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, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Rally Software, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software and Visual Studio Test Professional. 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.