We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure DevOps and OpenText AccuRev 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 solution integrates well with other Azure services and third-party tools."
"Fields can be customized and the reporting is good."
"It's a pretty problem-free solution."
"Stable and scalable solution for work planning and code collaboration. It's fast, and it offers a good user experience."
"Overall, so far we have no major issues to report."
"The available Kanban board is the best feature for management decisions."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the CI/CD pipeline, and the testing automation."
"I really like the Microsoft DevOps survey."
"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 most valuable feature is the Business Process Testing feature, BPT, because it brings in the most revenue."
"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 functions have too much dependency right now, so it makes it really, really hard to upgrade and make a change in the code."
"As for room for improvement, more features need to be added to the classic pipeline. The build and release pipelines are present, but there has not been much improvement there."
"The tutorials for building pipelines are an area that is a bit technical for a beginner."
"Some things like project management, tasks, progress, and having work progress views require us to use some external tools, or to create our own internal tools. These are not native to DevOps. It would be ideal if, instead of searching for third-party solutions, they had these feature sets or capabilities included under DevOps."
"I want DevOps to have more automated reminders about tasks that don't need management. We don't have reminders, so a project manager must track the tasks. It's not automatic."
"Not all companies use the same methodology which could limit the use of this solution."
"I would like to see better integration and collaboration between tools."
"I would like to see a bit more project tracking."
"The pricing should be more competitive."
"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."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 127 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 "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 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 Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText AccuRev 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.