We performed a comparison between Agile Manager [EOL] and TFS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, 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 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."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"The initial setup is fairly easy."
"Complete integration with VS IDE and Office tools: This give us a possibility of high-level automation, thus minimizing human error."
"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 the test plans. We can reproduce reusable test plans in test automation. We have a lot of queries and this feature is very useful."
"It's is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The testing module that we are used to, that wasn't there at all."
"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."
"TFS should allow more integration with different platforms."
"I understand Microsoft is phasing out TFS in favor of Git, so I would steer anyone interested in TFS to look into Git."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"Since the TFS was an on-prem solution, the private network accessibility was restricted."
"Since it is Microsoft, it is technology agnostic, thus it does not really fit into various different technologies in the organization."
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.