We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure DevOps and OpenText AccuRev 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."The tool's most efficient feature is the integration of its services in one place. It is an easy-to-use product that improves productivity. Microsoft Azure DevOps is also user-friendly. Its documentation is clear and can be found on Google."
"It's got something that you won't find in other products."
"The product is easy to use and very stable."
"It's a complete solution that has everything you need."
"What I like most about Azure DevOps is how easy it is to manage projects and control deployments."
"I think the most usable thing is that you can follow the whole progress of the development process. This makes it very useful for us."
"There are a lot of helpful features available for tracking dependencies."
"The creation of test plans is valuable and I like the reporting features."
"The product has all the features that we for application managementat a lower cost."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is taking snapshots while doing the execution of the test cases."
"The most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"The solution is 100% scalable. It's much more scalable than the customer's capacity for implementing it. We do plan to increase usage ourselves."
"The solution is generally stable but not entirely issue-free."
"The tool was developed for Agile project methodology, but I've noticed that there has also been a try to incorporate what is typically done in MS Project, which is for more sequential Waterfall projects. The problem with that is that it is half-baked for Waterfall projects. If you're going to do it, then either go all the way and allow us to use the tool for both or don't do it at all."
"I have not been able to use the integration with automation features, such as test management automation, with a framework that is written in Java."
"Being more technology-agnostic through ease of integration would be beneficial."
"The documentation isn't straightforward."
"There are certain areas in Azure DevOps that are better in other products."
"The solution's roadmap and Gantt charts could be improved."
"The tool has a logical link between epic feature, user story, and task, but when you try to generate a report to show the delivery progress against a feature, it is not easy. To see the percentage completion for a feature or progress of any delivery, it is not easy to draw a report."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"It is difficult to gain experience with the product because resources and documentation for learning are not available."
"In the next release, I would like to have a repository for the code which is embedded. Apart from that, it has everything I need."
"What I'm missing from the solution is a repository for the code. Something like Git, for example. Some sort of depository for the code that is embedded."
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 124 reviews while OpenText AccuRev is ranked 23rd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText AccuRev is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Good support, helpful management capabilities, and great Kanban boards". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText AccuRev writes "Good packaging features, but reporting is limited". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, whereas OpenText AccuRev is most compared with Jama Connect.
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.