Tarek GaberSoftware Product Manager at a computer software company
Anonymous UserAsst. Vice president, Applications Architecture at a tech services company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The cataloging is a very valuable feature. For a lot of enterprises, they end up not knowing which applications do specific features. The cataloging helps with this. It's not that verbose, but it still gives you allowances to put in more detail."
"It is relatively easy to use and user-friendly once the setup is complete."
"It helped us contain critical things, like source code and several documents, which is very important to us."
"At the same time, if you're working from the architect or the designing team you, it's quite easy to manage the resources online."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting of the CPU usage on the dashboard."
"You can customize the board according to your needs."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"The features should be more intuitive. If I'm looking for something, its location should be easy to locate."
"There is not enough beginner support material in the form of FAQs or simple training to help you get started."
"Of course it would be related to customer experience. The solution is not user friendly at all. It needs an expert to use it, although the reporting feature was okay."
"The directory designer manager is uncivil. The design manager is clearly really unstable."
"The stability of this solution can be improved."
"The reporting functionality needs to be improved."
"In the next release, I would like them to include integration for various projects, similar to what JIRA has, and they could create this feature on the dashboard."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
"The program and portfolio planning facility can be improved."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"They should have design patterns in TFS for the development team, and design patterns for the QA."
"The pricing is reasonable at this time."
"TFS is more competitively priced than some other solutions."
"We pay subscription fees on a yearly basis and the price is reasonable."
"I wouldn't say that this tool is cheap or expensive but in the middle."
"We are using the open-source version."
IBM Rational ALM is ranked 7th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 6 reviews while TFS is ranked 4th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 14 reviews. IBM Rational ALM is rated 7.2, while TFS is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Rational ALM writes "Helped with time management, improved our resource utility, and helped assure on-time completion". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TFS writes "Good project management features improve discipline and productivity in our application development lifecycle". IBM Rational ALM is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, PTC Integrity, Atlassian ALM and codeBeamer ALM, whereas TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. See our IBM Rational ALM 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.