We performed a comparison between Rally Software 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."It helps with getting the alignment between strategy and execution for the product teams, all the way down to the delivery teams."
"The effect of these kind of tools drives the way you organize things. It helps you shape the way you flow."
"The most valuable features of Rally Software are the executive dashboards, ease of use, and many other features. They have encapsulated everything that a GI can do, such as monitoring, maintaining, and then releasing. It's continuous integration and development."
"The most useful part is how it breaks down tasks into parents and children, manageable tasks. It has a whole project as an initiative, and then it breaks it down further and further. And then you get to actual user stories and tasks that you can sit and develop."
"We have teams come and go all the time. We have teams in India, America, Ireland, Poland, Italy, England... we are spread out everywhere! Rally is our key tool for scrum planning and our single source of truth, and it handles it all flawlessly."
"It has allowed the quality assurance team to keep all information in sync with the application requirements and user stories for our general development."
"Ease of use - I don't even know when a new release is coming and I don't need to because it's so easy to use what's new."
"Gives me a dashboard where I can see what things are not being worked on, what things are blocked."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"It is a stable solution."
"We use TFS for forecast management."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"TFS's best features include user-friendly test management, bug reporting, and ID assignment."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"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 features of TFS are bug reporting and its high performance."
"As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing."
"I think the interface could be a little bit more visual and less wordy. Right now, it seems like it's just a lot of text on the page. In other ticketing systems where it's more visual, you can see more of a flow. But in this one it's more just a list of tasks. I would like to see that a little bit better, especially considering it has so many great organizational features, like child tasks, different artifacts. It would be great to see it presented more appropriately."
"We want Rally to generate OKRs, to allow teams to record the OKRs, and then the OKRs can be mapped to the epics and there is organizational alignment."
"We did submit an enhancement request. I think a lot of teams that do very large scale products have the same issue. They just do not realize it would help them."
"CA Agile Central does not have a workflow tool included."
"One problem I see is that if there is a dependent user story - for example, if my team is working on one thing and there is a dependent user story from another team - we can have a dependency created but we don't know if there is a change of status from the other team. That is something which is very important for Agile Central to look into so that if the other team makes any changes we will be notified as well."
"The Reporting feature can improve, especially around executive summaries and dependency mapping."
"The stronger CA can get on dependency mapping the better. That's the biggest hiccup. As you're setting up your features, they should make it easier to flag the dependencies, either across features or across projects. Then you're more set up for success."
"More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively."
"There should be management of the project built-in."
"TFS's CI/CD, project pipelines, and management development could be improved."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"This solution is quite old and it is already being bundled as Azure DevOps Server."
"Sometimes we feel that it need more CPU, and RAMs on TFS server, either we implemented the hardware with the product minimum requirements."
"The solution's server for deployment needs to be improved."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
Rally Software is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Rally Software is rated 8.2, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Rally Software writes "A solution that enables users to accurately estimate the time required for building large software projects". 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". Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Jira Align, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Digital.ai Agility, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Visual Studio Test Professional, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and TestRail. See our Rally Software 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.