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."The most valuable feature is traceability starting from the requirements until the end of a project."
"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 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."
"It's a good tool to manage software versions, update the status, and manage tasks."
"Complete traceability as per process requirements."
"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 work item feature is most valuable. It allows us to store all product requirements. We can also link the test cases to those requirements so that we know which feature has already been tested, and which one is waiting for testing. We can also couple the code reviews, unit tests, and automated tests into these requirements. It is reliable. It has all the features and good performance. It also has reporting tools or analysis tools."
"I feel that the test plan and test tools are more manageable in TFS."
"It is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"The solution's iteration board is good because you can track all your work with it."
"Some of the valuable features are version control and the ability to create different collections in terms of segregating the authorization for teams who connect to small projects."
"The interface is good with TFS."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"We are unhappy because everything that we needed required customization and this is not a plug-and-play type of solution at all."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see better integration from the architectural side."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
"TFS is scalable with different Microsoft tools for test management but it is not scalable with other third-party tools."
"The project management side should be addressed and the project and release planning should be somewhat extended."
"We are also using Microsoft Teams. The two products function separately. There is not enough collaboration between Microsoft Teams and TFS."
"This solution is quite old and it is already being bundled as Azure DevOps Server."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"I'd like to see some kind of visualization tool for TFS that would make life much easier."
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, Visual Studio Test Professional and Digital.ai Agility. 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.