We performed a comparison between GoCD 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 most notable aspect is its user interface, which we find to be user-friendly and straightforward for deploying and comprehending pipelines. We have the ability to create multiple pipelines, and in addition to that, the resource consumption is impressive."
"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."
"The UI is colorful."
"The API for managing TFS programmatically is very powerful, you can listen on work items changes by TFS events."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"Work item management integration with source control."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is the central repository, and you can see what changes other developers did from which branch."
"The most valuable features are related to source code management. Using TFS for source code management and being able to branch and have multiple developers work on the same projects is valuable. We can also branch and merge code back together."
"We use TFS for forecast management."
"It is very user-friendly."
"The tool must be more user-friendly."
"The aspect that requires attention is the user management component. When integrating with BitLabs and authenticating through GitLab, there are specific features we desire. One important feature is the ability to import users directly from GitLab, along with their respective designations, and assign appropriate privileges based on that information. Allocating different privileges to users is a time-consuming process for us."
"The documentation really should be improved by including real examples and more setup cases."
"As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible."
"The overall reports in TFS could improve. Additionally, there should be an easier way to migrate from an older version to a newer one."
"The solution's server for deployment needs to be improved."
"The reporting functionality is something that they should work on."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
"There's not automatic access to test case management and execution."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"They have room for improvement in merging the source code changes for multiple developers across files. It is very good at highlighting the changes that the source code automatically does not know how to handle, but it's not very good at reporting the ones that it did automatically. There are times when we have source code that gets merged, and we lose the changes that we expected to happen. It can get a little confusing at times. They can just do a little bit better on the merging of changes for multiple developers."
GoCD is ranked 14th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while TFS is ranked 3rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 93 reviews. GoCD is rated 7.6, while TFS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of GoCD writes "User-friendly, useful multiple pipeline capabilities, and low resource consumption". 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". GoCD is most compared with GitLab, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Tekton, GitHub Actions and Jenkins, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our GoCD 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.