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."There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"It is a stable solution."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"CodeBeamer provides full traceability, excellent collaboration, regulatory compliance, and instant reporting with its holistic approach from requirement management to testing."
"TFS is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is integration, particularly if you have a .NET application."
"Stability is okay."
"For what I need TFS for, I have never run into any limitation."
"Version Control: TFS offers both the centralized “TFVC” version control technology as well as the distributed “Git” version control technology."
"It is very user-friendly."
"It's is a very stable solution."
"TFS's best features include user-friendly test management, bug reporting, and ID assignment."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"Usability needs to be improved."
"The product's UI is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"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."
"We would like to see more industry-specific features that are tailored to the vertical markets."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"I understand Microsoft is phasing out TFS in favor of Git, so I would steer anyone interested in TFS to look into Git."
"Overall, I think it would be useful to have something similar where Microsoft comes up with supporting concepts of scaling Agile in TFS so that clients don't have to look for a separate tool."
"The price could be cheaper."
"I would also like a true command prompt like Git."
"We encounter issues with backups."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"Microsoft should discontinue the use of SharePoint as I don’t really see any value add to TFS, document management features can be included in TFS web portal itself, if required!"
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.