We performed a comparison between Codebeamer and TFS 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."The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"Codebeamer's API-based integration and many other integration aspects with other solutions are very powerful."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"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."
"It's user friendly. We haven't had any issues so far. It's flexible. If we need something, we can always contact the owner in our headquarters to make a configuration."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"User alerts are very helpful for knowing when work is required."
"For what I need TFS for, I have never run into any limitation."
"Microsoft's technical team is supportive."
"The solution is very much stable."
"The most valuable feature is integration, particularly if you have a .NET application."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"The user interface could be improved to make it simpler and increase usability."
"The solution's server for deployment needs to be improved."
"Merging branches is definitely one of the more challenging aspects for people new to TFS."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"We encounter issues with backups."
"The reporting functionality is something that they should work on."
Codebeamer is ranked 9th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 10 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. Codebeamer is rated 7.8, while TFS is rated 8.0. 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 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". Codebeamer is most compared with PTC Integrity, Polarion ALM, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and OpenText ALM Octane, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and Tricentis Tosca. See our Codebeamer vs. TFS report.
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.