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."One of the most valuable features of Codebeamer is its strong performance."
"The platform provided the flexibility to expand our business processes, accommodating or altering them to suit the requirements of a changing environment."
"There is a lot of complexity involved, meaning it can do many things, which can be quite useful."
"The solution easily replaces IBM DOORS, which no longer offers maintenance in China."
"You can track the metrics in the Agile dashboard very easily."
"It is a stable solution."
"Since implementing this solution we have better communication and information exchange with customers."
"The traceability is so simple that I don't need to do any additional configurations related to traceability."
"Stability is okay."
"The most valuable feature is integration, particularly if you have a .NET application."
"TFS' most valuable feature is the triage process. It is a robust solution that is easy to use."
"The solution's iteration board is good because you can track all your work with it."
"The interface is good with TFS."
"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"The most valuable feature is simplicity."
"It has great functionality: work items, backlogs, source code, build releases, and it's easy to use."
"It's still a fairly new tool that lacks maturity right now."
"I would like to see more, easily trackable reports."
"Certain areas in Codebeamer could be improved, like addressing small issues, glitches, or bugs."
"The solution has a very small market share in China. It's almost like a startup."
"It would be helpful if Codebeamer's overall processing and integration with software like Jira could be improved."
"During migrations from other platforms to CodeBeamer, there have been instances where we encountered issues that required redoing certain tasks."
"The search and replace feature within the tool itself could be improved."
"Usability 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."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"TFS isn't a great tool if you're on the cloud."
"I would like to see TFS improve its web interface as there are some limitations with IDs and the integration behind it and with open-source tools like VS Code."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The reporting functionality is something that they should work on."
"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
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, TestRail and Polarion ALM. 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.