We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and IBM Engineering Workflow Management 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."Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"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."
"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."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"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."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"The solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
More IBM Engineering Workflow Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while IBM Engineering Workflow Management is ranked 10th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 14 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while IBM Engineering Workflow Management is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of Codebeamer writes "Has good technical support services, but the migration process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Engineering Workflow Management writes "Offers good traceability elements but UI needs improvement ". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and TFS, whereas IBM Engineering Workflow Management is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, GitLab, Polarion ALM and Endevor.
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.
