We performed a comparison between Apache Subversion and IBM Rational ClearCase based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, GitHub, Git and others in Version Control."We have developed automation to speed up common repetitive processes."
"Apache Subversion is a scalable solution."
"IBM Rational ClearCase is a stable solution. I have not had any difficulty with reliability."
"ClearCase integrates well with other engineering tools and frameworks such as the Eclipse environment."
"The tool had features similar to Git for version control. It offered branching and merging capabilities, providing better control over code management. Integration was possible with other tools, including some change management tools. The overall process was normal."
"The most valuable feature is CLI."
"Apache Subversion should be easier to use."
"The protection needs to be improved."
"The solution's UI is slow compared to other tools. It is an old tool."
"I have found it very difficult to understand many functionalities in IBM Rational ClearCase. We have had many problems and it is not user-friendly."
Apache Subversion is ranked 9th in Version Control with 4 reviews while IBM Rational ClearCase is ranked 8th in Version Control with 6 reviews. Apache Subversion is rated 7.2, while IBM Rational ClearCase is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of Apache Subversion writes "Centralized repository, but the stability could improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational ClearCase writes "Difficult to use, not efficient, but stable". Apache Subversion is most compared with , whereas IBM Rational ClearCase is most compared with Git, GitHub, Bitbucket, IBM Rational ClearQuest and HCL Compass.
See our list of best Version Control vendors.
We monitor all Version Control 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.
