Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Microsoft Azure DevOps based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Jira, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, and OpenText ALM Octane.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Microsoft Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Microsoft, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Jira excels in bug and issue tracking with agile management and customization. In comparison, Azure DevOps stands out with integrated CICD and collaboration tools. Jira offers various deployment options, while Azure is efficient for Microsoft ecosystems. Pricing for both varies by team size.
Jira's setup cost is relatively low, providing cost-effective solutions, while Microsoft Azure DevOps requires a higher initial investment, reflecting its comprehensive platform offerings.
Jira's setup cost is relatively low, providing cost-effective solutions, while Microsoft Azure DevOps requires a higher initial investment, reflecting its comprehensive platform offerings.
OpenText ALM/Quality Center serves as the single pane of glass for software quality management. It helps you govern application lifecycle management activities and implement rigorous, auditable lifecycle processes.
OpenText ALM Octane offers comprehensive DevOps tools and supports advanced agile practices. In comparison, Azure DevOps excels in seamless integration with Microsoft products and provides effective CI/CD pipelines, appealing to organizations within Microsoft's ecosystem with competitive pricing and flexible licensing options.
OpenText ALM Octane often involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps typically offers a competitive entry-level setup cost, positioning itself as a more budget-friendly option for startups and small businesses.
OpenText ALM Octane often involves a higher initial setup cost, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps typically offers a competitive entry-level setup cost, positioning itself as a more budget-friendly option for startups and small businesses.
Rally Software excels in Agile project management with strong integration and reporting capabilities, ideal for large teams. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps offers comprehensive DevOps features, including CI/CD pipelines, with competitive pricing and seamless integration within the Azure ecosystem, benefiting Microsoft-centric enterprises.
Rally Software offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps provides a flexible setup with potential for variable expenses.
Rally Software offers a straightforward setup with minimal costs, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps provides a flexible setup with potential for variable expenses.
Polarion ALM delivers comprehensive traceability and requirements management, appealing to regulated environments with significant ROI. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps emphasizes scalable CI/CD capabilities and seamless integration with Microsoft tools, favoring teams seeking cost-effective cloud solutions and extensive project management resources.
Polarion ALM incurs higher setup costs compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more cost-effective initial investment. Azure DevOps is favored for affordability, while Polarion ALM may require a larger budget upfront.
Polarion ALM incurs higher setup costs compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more cost-effective initial investment. Azure DevOps is favored for affordability, while Polarion ALM may require a larger budget upfront.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers comprehensive repository management, code collaboration, and seamless integration with Microsoft tools for effective project management and CI/CD pipelines. In comparison, Nutanix Cloud Manager provides efficient infrastructure management and low-code automation for managing complex operations across on-premises and private clouds.
Microsoft Azure DevOps charges a moderate setup cost, whereas Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM) offers a higher setup fee, reflecting different pricing strategies between the platforms.
Microsoft Azure DevOps charges a moderate setup cost, whereas Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM) offers a higher setup fee, reflecting different pricing strategies between the platforms.
Microsoft Azure DevOps excels in repository management and code collaboration with strong integration, offering effective project management and pipelines. In comparison, Jira Align delivers strategic alignment and advanced portfolio insights, ideal for large organizations seeking to align development with business strategies.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a more affordable setup cost compared to Jira Align, providing a cost-effective option for smaller teams, while Jira Align's higher setup cost may be justified by its robust features catering to larger enterprise environments.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a more affordable setup cost compared to Jira Align, providing a cost-effective option for smaller teams, while Jira Align's higher setup cost may be justified by its robust features catering to larger enterprise environments.
Codebeamer attracts users with its customizable workflows and robust test management, offering a flexible pricing model suited for SMEs. In comparison, Azure DevOps provides seamless integration with Microsoft services and cloud benefits, appealing to large enterprises seeking comprehensive Microsoft ecosystem solutions.
Codebeamer offers a more affordable setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, making it an attractive option for budget-conscious users, whereas Azure DevOps may require a larger initial investment but provides robust integration capabilities.
Codebeamer offers a more affordable setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, making it an attractive option for budget-conscious users, whereas Azure DevOps may require a larger initial investment but provides robust integration capabilities.
Jama Connect excels in detailed requirements tracking, making it ideal for focused requirements management. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps offers comprehensive project management with seamless integration into development environments, attracting tech buyers looking for extensive tools in software development and operations.
PTC Integrity is chosen for strong integration and compliance in software development. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps offers cloud-native tools and flexibility for agile practices. Tech buyers might choose PTC for compliance needs, while others prefer Azure for its adaptable, cost-effective deployment.
PTC Integrity requires a higher setup cost with extensive customizations, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps provides a more cost-effective setup with better integration options, highlighting significant differences in initial investment and platform integration capabilities.
PTC Integrity requires a higher setup cost with extensive customizations, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps provides a more cost-effective setup with better integration options, highlighting significant differences in initial investment and platform integration capabilities.
Digital.ai Agility excels in agile project management and is ideal for teams focused on agile practices. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps offers an extensive DevOps toolset, making it suitable for those needing comprehensive project support and seamless integration within Microsoft ecosystems.
Digital.ai Agility incurs higher setup costs than Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more economical initial investment. Microsoft Azure DevOps attracts users with cost-effective options, while Digital.ai Agility may require more budget allocation for setup.
Digital.ai Agility incurs higher setup costs than Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more economical initial investment. Microsoft Azure DevOps attracts users with cost-effective options, while Digital.ai Agility may require more budget allocation for setup.
IBM Engineering Rhapsody is ideal for complex systems modeling with its advanced UML and SysML capabilities. In comparison, Azure DevOps offers robust continuous integration and deployment features, providing flexibility and streamlined operations, appealing to organizations focused on agile development and adaptive environments.
IBM Engineering Rhapsody requires a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more budget-friendly pricing structure for its initial setup.
IBM Engineering Rhapsody requires a higher setup cost compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which offers a more budget-friendly pricing structure for its initial setup.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers strong integration capabilities ideal for streamlined development processes. In comparison, Planview AgilePlace excels with visualization tools, enhancing agile methodologies. Azure DevOps suits Microsoft-entrenched teams, while AgilePlace appeals to those prioritizing visual task management and agile adaptation.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a straightforward setup with low initial costs, while Planview AgilePlace involves a more complex setup that may incur higher costs. Azure focuses on affordability, whereas AgilePlace emphasizes comprehensive features.
Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a straightforward setup with low initial costs, while Planview AgilePlace involves a more complex setup that may incur higher costs. Azure focuses on affordability, whereas AgilePlace emphasizes comprehensive features.
GoCD excels in value stream mapping and pipeline modeling for managing complex workflows. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps integrates extensively with Azure services, offering scalability alongside collaboration tools, appealing to larger teams seeking advanced functionalities and seamless deployment with other Microsoft products.
GoCD offers a competitive setup cost, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps presents a higher initial investment. This highlights a notable difference in their pricing models, catering to distinct budgetary needs.
GoCD offers a competitive setup cost, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps presents a higher initial investment. This highlights a notable difference in their pricing models, catering to distinct budgetary needs.
Atlassian ALM excels in pricing and smooth deployment, attracting those valuing cost-efficiency and responsive customer assistance. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps appeals to buyers needing comprehensive CI/CD features and enterprise-level support, backed by Microsoft's scalable cloud infrastructure.
Atlassian ALM's setup cost is often considered lower compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which tends to have higher initial expenses. This difference may be crucial for organizations prioritizing budget-friendly initial investments.
Atlassian ALM's setup cost is often considered lower compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps, which tends to have higher initial expenses. This difference may be crucial for organizations prioritizing budget-friendly initial investments.
PractiTest offers strong test management with customizable dashboards and responsive support, ideal for cost-conscious businesses. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps delivers a comprehensive lifecycle solution with extensive integrations and scalable cloud deployment, appealing to organizations willing to invest in diverse feature sets.
Inflectra SpiraTeam attracts smaller teams with its streamlined experience and lower price. In comparison, Microsoft Azure DevOps appeals to enterprises needing extensive integration capabilities and complex workflow support despite the higher cost. Both offer flexible deployments, though Azure DevOps provides more robust support.
Inflectra SpiraTeam typically involves an upfront setup cost with customization potential, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps often offers a more flexible cost structure aligned with user demands.
Inflectra SpiraTeam typically involves an upfront setup cost with customization potential, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps often offers a more flexible cost structure aligned with user demands.
OpenText AccuRev offers advanced version control for large teams, while Microsoft Azure DevOps provides extensive integration and DevOps tools. In comparison, Azure DevOps emphasizes cloud deployment and broad support, whereas AccuRev focuses on tailored workflows for complex projects. Both solutions offer distinct pricing advantages.
OpenText AccuRev has significant initial setup costs, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a more budget-friendly setup option. This cost contrast highlights the financial commitment required for adopting OpenText AccuRev compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps.
OpenText AccuRev has significant initial setup costs, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps offers a more budget-friendly setup option. This cost contrast highlights the financial commitment required for adopting OpenText AccuRev compared to Microsoft Azure DevOps.
