TeamCity Reviews

• Templates
• Meta-runners
• Plugins
• Multiple version control system support
• REST API support

We can build our code daily and automatically, with email notification for failures. It's easy to move to a new release because of templates and meta-runners, and agent pooling.

REST API support lacks many features in customization of builds, jobs, and settings. 

Also, integration with newer technologies needs improvement.

Depends on the server host, but it runs on Java so it needs high specs. Otherwise, the website takes a long time to load. 

Also, supporting newer technologies is limited.

You have to clean up old projects, otherwise the load on the server increases with increase in size of projects.

Technical support is good.

No previous solution.

Straightforward, the documentation on the website is very helpful.

I don't handle pricing so I can't really advise on this.

We did not evaluate other options but we may consider moving to Jenkins because it's free and has many similar features.

Use Templates and meta-runners, they are very useful in scaling your product with new releases.

• Good visualization of builds
• Easy configuration
• Good integration with IDE and JetBrains products

People react faster on failing builds.

I would suggest creating simple and advanced configurations. Advanced configurations will give more customizations like Jenkins does.

Generally no, just in a few cases.

No, adding new build agents were enough.

I would give technical support an eight out of 10. They provide help quickly.

At another company, we switched from Jenkins to TeamCity because of the support.

The setup is straightforward.

If you can, try it out first.

Jenkins.

Try to think about pipeline before buying this product, you can set it up on one machine and try it out.

We primarily use the solution for application building and testing, continuous integration testing, and continuous delivery.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its easy configuration. It also has multiple plugins that can be used especially for building .net applications.

Some of the configurations have room for improvement. They are partly calling another tool via the command line and the parameters on the command line are occasionally hard to use.

If there was more documentation that was easier to locate, it would be helpful for users.

I've been using the solution for five years.

In the prior version, there were some problems with the doc agents, but the latest version is quite stable.

We're not a big company, so we don't need to scale in a big way. It is possible to partly scale by adding multiple agents within the license. It would be quite easy to do this if you need to.

We've never used technical support. We haven't needed to use it yet.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Our company handled the implementation.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd advise others that it's absolutely necessary to use an integration tool that can run integration tests. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.