We performed a comparison between GitLab and IBM Engineering Workflow Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Agile Planning Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We use the Git repository and tagging feature. We are a product-based company and use this solution to move to a forward or backward tag."
"The solution has an established roadmap that lays out its plans for upgrades over the next two to three years."
"The most valuable features of GitLab are the CI/CD pipeline and code management."
"I have found the most valuable feature is security control. I also like the branching and cloning software."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"A user friendly solution."
"This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it."
"The scalability is good."
"Work distribution among team members and accountability for completion with a clearer picture."
"We can track the status of test cases (passed or saved) in a single view. Based on releases and other attributes, we generate various reports and extract metrics from the data."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"Agile templates give us a standard methodology for every Agile project. Also, the ability to create our own object types and linkages to features/epics allows us to enhance the verification of feature readiness."
"The most valuable features of the solution are highly customizable reports and visibility for all the higher management."
"Expand features to match other tools such as a static code analysis tool so third-party integrations are not required."
"GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff."
"There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents."
"We do face issues in our company when we run out of disk space."
"It would be really good if they integrated more features in application security."
"We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating."
"We would like to generate document pages from the sources."
"I would like to have some features to support peer review."
"The solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
"If you have multiple projects on one server, the tool becomes very slow, and some reports take longer to load."
"We have encountered issues with stability. We have seen where the entire system kind of goes for a toss when certain people use certain types of queries, which are very costly. Then the system kind of slows down a bit, and we have to monitor it."
More IBM Engineering Workflow Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
GitLab is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 70 reviews while IBM Engineering Workflow Management is ranked 10th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 15 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while IBM Engineering Workflow Management is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Engineering Workflow Management writes "Offers good traceability elements but UI needs improvement ". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, SonarQube, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton, whereas IBM Engineering Workflow Management is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Polarion ALM and Endevor. See our GitLab vs. IBM Engineering Workflow Management report.
See our list of best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Agile Planning Tools 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.
