We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure DevOps and Rally Software 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.
"Azure Port is considered the most valuable feature."
"Setting up Azure DevOps was straightforward. It's easy to use the default templates. Everything is under our control, so it's simple to implement new requirements."
"It has a good GUI, and it's very user-friendly."
"This is an all-in-one, one-stop shop, nothing comes close."
"Everything that's related to the pipeline has been very good."
"The most valuable feature is that it brings order to our projects, and we know the status of each one at every moment."
"Azure is an advantage when working with other Microsoft solutions."
"I like the entire tool because it is a one-stop-solution for DevOps."
"Reporting is much easier and faster than Micro Focus ALM, with CA AC built on web services... Also, the data is more granular when it comes to tasks, iterations, sprints, and releases."
"When we went into Scaled Agile Framework, we could not have done it without the use of Agile Central. It allows us to scale our Scrum teams, and it also enables us when we do our remote big room plannings."
"We can work better and at a higher quality, than we were able to before."
"What I like most about Rally Software, in terms of using it for the agile process, is that it's clear, useful, and user-friendly. I also like that it has every field you can use for the Scrum process."
"It drives the conversation behind some of the pain points the teams have, based on the data that we're able to pull out of the system. As a result of that, we're able to make better decisions, to become better as a whole."
"The main ways that I used it when I was in it day to day was keeping up with the burn rate within the teams. Also, to track at the feature level too, as far as how we were doing with actually being able to deliver that feature."
"Helps me plan an estimate of how soon or how far out we'll be able to deliver something."
"The effect of these kind of tools drives the way you organize things. It helps you shape the way you flow."
"It is not that intuitive. Sometimes, it is hard to find some of the functions. I would like to have an old-fashioned menu structure to be able to easily find things. Its environment setup is not very good. They should improve the way it is set up for different screens and make it easier to find functionalities and maintain team members."
"I have not been able to use the integration with automation features, such as test management automation, with a framework that is written in Java."
"As for improvement, the first one is pricing. For us, luckily because we are partners, it's free. Microsoft gold partners do not have to pay, but if you're not a partner, the product is very expensive."
"Something that could be improved is the initial setup with the integration of ReadyAPI."
"Reporting could be better. We would like to see how many applications are onboarded in DevOps and in which phase they are. We would like to know for how many applications we have done only the repository, but we have not yet done the build pipeline or deploy pipeline. Currently, there is no such report. We have to figure it out ourselves. There is no way to check how many applications are completing their build pipelines, how many applications are completing their deploy pipeline, how many are ready to use, and how many pipelines are working."
"Its UI can be easier and more customer-friendly. The UI can be improved from the project management and agile perspective."
"The solution can be improved by having better integration with other cloud platforms."
"The UI could be improved."
"I would like to see more Kanban support. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have the features or the layouts that the teams really need to be able to execute their tasks. It almost tries to force you into more of a Scrum style."
"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."
"There's a lot of support for Scrum and Agile, but it needs something for the Kanban side."
"I think there is a missing link with the development activity. Some developers are pushing in new versions of the code, but you cannot make the link from the user story to a specific application version."
"What I don't like about it is that it is really hard to find old work to reference information and use the reporting section of the application in terms of trying to analyze trends. If I am trying to find out which interfaces took this long and I want to compare and measure improvement from one quarter to another quarter, the reporting mechanism within Rally is very troublesome. They have an Excel plugin that you're supposed to use, but you literally have to pull the raw data out before you can do the analysis. You can't do it within Rally, and if you can, it is a secret, and I don't know how to do it. It should have better, easier, and user-friendly reporting without having to use the Excel add-in. It is very clunky. There is a lot of data in there, but it is not organized in such a way that makes it intuitive. You really have to kind of look for where do you put your documentation or dates. Some customization is available, but it is not plug-and-play like Jira. When I switched from TFS to Jira, I just went and started using Jira, whereas with Rally, you kind of have to really get in and figure out what you need to do before you set stuff up, or you're going to get yourself stuck. You can just start using Jira and be successful."
"As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing."
"The navigation within the tool sometimes is a little tricky for me. I'm sure with more use, more practice, I'll become accustomed to it, but some of the things just aren't intuitive."
"It is hard to track the changes. For example, we're in sprint 25, and then we have 26, 27, 28, and 29. Throughout that whole time, we're developing pipelines in Azure, moving to GitHub, creating pipelines, and working with teams. But sometimes, we need to revisit specific decisions made in previous sprints, like pipeline details. Maybe it's in our Azure Wiki, GitHub, or Teams, but it's not always consistent. I wish I could search for all tasks or stories related to that particular effort without needing to know everyone's individual stories or features."
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 124 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Good support, helpful management capabilities, and great Kanban boards". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "A solution that enables users to accurately estimate the time required for building large software projects". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Jira, TFS, Jira Align, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Digital.ai Agility. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. Rally Software report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools 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.
