We performed a comparison between Agile Manager [EOL] and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."How you write your user stories, and the requirements gathering, in Agile Manager is pretty good."
"The solution is very much stable."
"The most valuable features of TFS are the test plans. We can reproduce reusable test plans in test automation. We have a lot of queries and this feature is very useful."
"As far as queries are concerned, creating, grading, or customizing the queries as a primary requirement is very easy to do."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"For what I need TFS for, I have never run into any limitation."
"The biggest value-add is the solution integrates well with most Microsoft products."
"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."
"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 testing module that we are used to, that wasn't there at all."
"Sometimes we feel that it need more CPU, and RAMs on TFS server, either we implemented the hardware with the product minimum requirements."
"Integration from Visual Studio could 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."
"Currently, we are looking for a solution with which we can incorporate third-party development sites or third-party project teams into the system. Because it is on-premise, it is a bit problematic because we need to have a VPN or something else in the system. A cloud-based solution would be better for us, and that's what we are looking for. Our biggest problem is the external connection, which, of course, is limited by our own IT. It would be good to have some kind of publishing service for this external connection. It might be there, and it might be that our IT is making it impossible for us. Its template editor could be easier to use. Currently, customizing the project templates according to your needs requires some work."
"The reporting functionality is something that they should work on."
"There are many things that I cannot do, and I have a lot of bugs."
"Since the TFS was an on-prem solution, the private network accessibility was restricted."
"The solution should have better dashboards."
Earn 20 points
Agile Manager [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Agile Manager [EOL] is rated 7.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Agile Manager [EOL] writes "We have the ability to define common standard procedures and methodologies. I'm looking for better integration using Octane". 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". Agile Manager [EOL] is most compared with , 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.
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.