We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure DevOps and Octopus Deploy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Most of the features are very valuable for us, especially the source code control and task management."
"The most valuable features are continuous integration and deployment, and simplicity."
"The nice thing about Visual Studio Code is that it's a modular design. So if you're working on a strange language that has a different syntax, you can just get a plugin that'll format your code for you based on the language it's in."
"It is a cloud-based system. So, it is stable and scalable."
"Our technical sales staff and business development people need to know how far the developers are on any product that we're developing. DevOps makes it easier for you to see how far along they are with the work because they have a repository where they store everything. There is a portal where you can see what has been done, what has been tested, what is working, and what isn't. I have a huge dashboard with an overview of what the development team is doing from an executive point of view."
"Azure enables us to create a staging environment through to a production environment in an easier way and then get the code and run that."
"It's a complete solution that has everything you need."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the CI/CD pipeline, and the testing automation."
"The rollback feature has been most valuable. We can write scripts from scratch. Octopus maintains an independent package for every deployment."
"The UI is very intuitive."
"Deployment is valuable. It deploys well."
"The test management section needs to be improved."
"I would like to see better interoperability with the agile scaling frameworks."
"It should be easier to manage Licenses especially because it's in the cloud."
"One potential enhancement in Azure DevOps could be integrating more customizable reporting features, particularly for Power BI integration."
"Its interface could be more user-friendly. It could be simplified for users with no prior knowledge. There should also be better tutorials."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps should create some training materials."
"We would like some bidirectional synchronization. It's the requirement if you want to analyze it to software requirements, et cetera. That's something that most of the tools aren't that good at."
"Something that could be improved is the initial setup with the integration of ReadyAPI."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to divide variables in YAML file or JSON files."
"You've got to jump through a few hoops to get some things configured, but if set up, you can do so many different things in it. So, there is complexity."
"There could be scope for more integration with other platforms."
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 127 reviews while Octopus Deploy is ranked 8th in Release Automation with 3 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while Octopus Deploy is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Octopus Deploy writes "Easy to set up with intuitive UI and good reliability". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Planview AgilePlace, whereas Octopus Deploy is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, UrbanCode Deploy, GitLab, AWS CodeDeploy and Spinnaker. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. Octopus Deploy report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation 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.