TFS Reviews

We use TFS for bug detection and incident management. 

TFS' most valuable feature is the triage process. It is a robust solution that is easy to use. 

The tool needs improvement in stability. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

I rate the tool's stability a seven out of ten. 

TFS' scalability is quite good. My company has 25 users. 

TFS' deployment is simple. You need about five to seven resources to handle the deployment and maintenance. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate TFS an eight out of ten. 

We use TFS for forecast management.

The tool is sufficient for our business.

We encounter issues with backups.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

TFS' stability is fine.

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is very good.

TFS is easy to install. We had a team of two to three persons to handle the deployment.

TFS is a scalable and useful solution. I rate it a seven out of ten.

With respect to all the Microsoft Stack development, we use TFS as a repository and source version control system.

TFS is very user-friendly. It is easy to use and has a smaller learning curve.

TFS should allow more integration with different platforms.

I have been using TFS for the past four to five years.

TFS is a stable and robust solution.

TFS is a scalable solution.

I have never used Microsoft’s technical support.

We used SSMS and Visual Studio before, but then we switched to TFS because it is a native product of Microsoft.

The setup was straightforward. It took only five to ten minutes to deploy.

We did it in-house. TFS is user-friendly. So we do not require much help to deploy. An administrator can implement it.

TFS is worth its money.

TFS is not cheap. We pay for monthly licensing at the enterprise level.

I use the 2022 version of TFS. Currently, we are integrating GitHub with Visual Studio. It is a better combination when compared to TFS. So our organization is leveraging it. I haven’t faced any issues with TFS’s performance. GitHub can be used on many different platforms. That is why we shifted from TFS to GitHub for version control.

For data integration projects, to deploy the integration solution, we need to prepare the files based on the specifications. Then it is deployed into the production or any other environment we want to deploy.

My organization has been using TFS for a long time now. From the time I joined the organization, I have been using TFS. Now we use GitHub because Microsoft has acquired GitHub. If required, we can also add more developers to TFS. I’m not a part of the purchasing department, so I do not know the exact price of TFS. I would rate TFS a nine out of ten.

TFS is used for version control. So, other software can integrate with TFS. The tool is also used for documentation and STLC.

Since it is a robust solution, I face no performance issues. Also, considering how well the implementation process of the solution was carried out, we never faced any issues while using the solution.

As an end-user, I expect the solution's performance to be faster while staying as stable as possible.

To be frank, we never considered the need for additional features in the solution. I don't have any specific suggestions for what could be added since the tool is already very streamlined. It is a stable tool without any issues; everybody in my company is happy with the solution. We follow a streamlined process at work with a specific set of steps from point A to point Z in a thorough manner. If there was something tedious, time-consuming, or repetitive in the solution, I could have spoken about what additional features I wanted to see.

I have been using TFS for a year. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution. I am just an end-user of the solution.

Since it is a very stable product, there is no chance of our company planning to replace it with some other product. The most that my company would do is they might consider shifting from TFS Version Control to Git TFS.

As I work in a bank, TFS ensures the solution is always available, making it a stable tool. I have never faced any stability issues while using the solution.

It is a scalable solution since TFS offers users a very good system, hardware, and efficient people to implement their tool. It is a very scalable software. Also, the scalability of software depends upon its hardware, and they provide very robust hardware.

The initial setup and implementation process of the solution was something that was done years ago in my company. Since I joined the company recently, I won't be in a position to comment on the implementation process.

We have an entire floor of people who provide technical support for deploying and maintaining the solution in our company.

I believe that my company has opted for volume licensing provided by TFS. So, it is not just one or two licenses my company has since my company trusts products from Microsoft. Though I am unsure, I think that if you purchase one of Microsoft's products, they offer you some of their other products for free. As per my knowledge, Microsoft products are cheaper than other products in the market. On a scale where ten is the highest and one is the cheapest, I rate the solution's licensing cost at one on a scale of one to ten.

Since in our company, we are already trained to use the solution, and so we never face any issues or problems while using the solution. The pre-existing features in the solution are more than enough to meet our needs.

The solution has a user-friendly interface. The solution already allows for more integrations with other solutions. Also, there is a separate team that works on the solution. The solution protects the systems in my organization. When it comes to the products offered to customers by TFS, they are constantly evolving since it has been in the market for twenty years. Also, we keep getting updates for the solution every second or third day.

I have a laptop, and if I start the solution on that laptop after two weeks or three weeks, I won't be able to connect. I need to take it to my technical support team. They will install some updates, and then I will be able to use my laptop. So, from this, one can figure out how much the solution has invested in their system. So, it is very rare that the solution faces any issues, and if any issues crop up in the solution, they have a very robust system of dealing with such problems. They have a good IT team that quickly resolves any issues. So, people are working to improve the system day by day. Every day, there is an evolution in their products. Some teams are working on production issues because of the new features implemented in the tool. Also, they are monitoring it continuously.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

We use TFS for volume control, source checking, and source control.

The most valuable feature of TFS is that it keeps the code secure while working collaboratively in a team of four or five individuals.

We have different teams working on different solutions using different technology sets. At the backend, it has good source control. We work with Microsoft technology stack, open source stack, as well as IBM stack. We have different teams working on the backend with TFS as our source control.

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.

As a version control, we have found some inconsistencies related to updates from previous versions. If you set up the Git repository, and you want to change it back to TFS, it is a bit confusing now in the latest update. We were hung up when two repositories were intermingled together. We were confused about why the Git project was not converting to TFS. I believe Microsoft is supporting the Git repositories. 

The TFS TFVC is not user-friendly because, for Git repositories that you have already created to use the TFS repositories, you need to go back into the ID to Video Studio when the TFS repository comes up by default.

Using the web interface, by default you get the Git repository. For a team that is not familiar with this and is not using the ID as a video studio or VS, code management gets difficult. Even with VS Code as an open source ID, TFS at the backend as a repository is difficult and integration is complex.

I have been using TFS on a daily basis for five years.

So far, I have found TFS to be stable.

The solution is scalable, however, we do not need to scale because we do not have many people on each team. The administration part requires three or four people, and for development teams, we have about 15 team members who actively use VS Code.

The initial setup of TFS is really just a click. It is basic and not complex.

We deployed the solution in-house.

Our organization has an enterprise license with TFS.

We explored other sources before. We also used some open-source tools.

We are considering trying another solution as we don't find TFS assistance or community help when compared to Git.

TFS is a good solution once you get comfortable using it. If you are coming from TFS 2013 or TFS 2015, you are going to find the 2019 version different. I understand that TFS is moving towards the cloud, so all the features are designed with this in mind. In the 2019 version, you will see more DevOps-related tools and automated app tools.

The solution is easy and complex at the same time. If you are familiar with pipelines, you will find it interesting. You need a technical team to provide help and assistance to get the whole value from 2000 DevOps TFVC. If you are not actually fully exploring the feature set or using them, it is just another source control like any other open-source control.

If you gain experience with the iron value sets with TFVC DevOps, the whole project management will be smooth and stable. Releases will come out but all the hiccups between the teams, such as the development teams, QA teams, and deployment teams will smooth out. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten overall.

We use this solution mostly for our clients. It's a lifecycle management tool. We use it for the entire lifecycle of software development. Then we deliver it, and use it for production support. Basically, you can always use it for your requirements, as well as to track the health of your project.

I have found almost all of the features valuable because it integrates well with your Microsoft products. If a client is using the entire Microsoft platform, then TFS would be definitely preferable. It integrates with the digital studio development environment as well. So, almost all the features for TFS are useful.

The good thing is, unlike other products, you get a complete suite of features. Many of the other vendors don't have an entire suite of features available. If you take Jira for example, the requirements might be captured in a different tool. Or maybe there are other features in the lifecycle development environment and different tools might be used, but TFS offers a consolidated package. You don't have to go to other tools to capture your requirements, or maybe even if you're doing build and release planning.

Nowadays, the shift is from Waterfall to Agile, so many vendors have come up with their own products. For example, Jira has many built-in features which support the PI planning. Overall, I think it would be useful to have something similar where Microsoft comes up with supporting concepts of scaling Agile in TFS so that clients don't have to look for a separate tool. That would be helpful.

With the latest version, I'm not too aware of whether Microsoft has implemented the PI planning features, the collaboration features, in TFS or not. But I think that would be one of the features that might be helpful to the development teams and for the overall planning.

There have also been some security glitches with this solution.

I've used this solution for more than 10 years. I've been working on Microsoft technologies only, and my team members have also been working on TFS for a long time.

The last time I used TFS was in 2020. After that, I moved out of delivery into consulting. I was using the last version before they moved to the cloud version, Azure DevOps.

Earlier, we were using it majorly on-premises. Later on when Microsoft introduced Azure DevOps, then we moved onto the cloud.

It is stable.

It's absolutely scalable. If you are planning for a high availability environment, then you can definitely have a backup environment as well. Then if something goes wrong with your primary server, there is always a backup available, which you can always use.

The support and documentation available on their website are very good.

I would rate them between 4 and 5 on a scale of 1 to 5.

I would give the initial setup a four out of five. It's not very complex. Microsoft provides all the documentation and guidance to do the setup, and even has videos available. The guidance is very good.

The length of deployment is on a case-by-case basis. Some of the clients may have a complex environment, some may not. So it depends on what kind of supporting tools are available on the client's premises. TFS is not that complex to set up, unless the environment design is very complex.

Most of the clients have their own support teams for incident management. So, it depends on each of the individual clients. They have the budget, and they will have an entire team to support your TFS and management.

It's worth the money. I've been using Microsoft products right from the start of my career, and I'm a big fan of Microsoft products. Many people don't like them because they work on different platforms. But the good thing about Microsoft products is that they're interlinked. For example, even if I'm a developer, the underlying development language is always going to be the same, irrespective of whether I use Dynamics 365 or ASP. The underlying programming language is always common. So, the rates are comparatively less than shifting from one Microsoft product to another, or implementing the suite of Microsoft products. The learning curve is always comparatively less.

Microsoft products are always expensive. Obviously, they are quality products, but it would be helpful if there was a reduction in price. But compared to other vendors, I think the cost is high.

I've been doing the budgeting for clients, and I find that the costing part — when we are going for new environments or we are ordering new servers — definitely plays a big part.

I would rate it between a 2 and 3 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I'd give it that rating because there are security glitches, but otherwise, from a usability standpoint and from the operational perspective, I think the products are really good.

We use it for software development, but we are moving to Jira.

We work with life science companies, and they need traceability. Because we have the capability of being able to provide the traceability that they require, it helps us with laying out what they need for their validation efforts.

The traceability is valuable. While managing the workflows, it was always nice to have that traceability from requirements and all the way through design. It integrates with Microsoft Test Manager (MTM), and you can have everything that is related to a requirement attached to it.

It has been really dated. When you start to work more in an agile environment, it is not really that flexible. They tried to replicate the look and feel of Jira, but it is not quite there. It was nice to use in the past, but it is not as flexible now with the changing development environments and methodologies.

It should have some of the things that Jira has, such as boards. We're focused on the scrum boards where you can actually drag and drop work from one queue to another. There should be more flexibility where you can just drag and drop as a user and have more visibility about what's active, what's not, and what's assigned to you through dashboards.

I have been using this solution for almost 14 years.

It was quite stable. We did not have a lot of issues over all those years. So, it definitely was a reliable solution for a long period of time. It just was not flexible when we started moving to a more agile model.

It was able to scale to meet our needs. It also allowed us to do our customization. I'm not sure if that ended up being a good thing, but it did allow us to do what we wanted it to do.

We have about 150 users, and they're developers, FQA, software quality engineers, business analysts, user experience team members, and architects. For its deployment and maintenance, in general, there are four or five people. They are from the DevOps team.

We don't plan to expand its usage. We're transitioning to Jira.

Their support was good. We had the support we needed for both TFS and Microsoft Test Manager.

We were not using any different solution. This company has been working with TFS for as long as I can remember. We're now transitioning to Jira.

It was fairly complex, but some of it was due to us. We did more configuration and customization, and because we customized the system, it made it more complicated.

In terms of duration, some of our previous upgrades took several days. Most of that was the actual deployment, but the preparation took several weeks.

We did use an integrator once or twice. Our experience with them was good. It was easier because we didn't have to worry about a lot of things. They took the burden of the effort, and we just had to give them information.

We haven't quantified that. In general, there has been a great time saving because with what we've done around validation artifacts, we've been able to build it right into the system. So, we can automatically generate it at the end of a release. Earlier, it would've taken us six weeks to put together a validation package. With what we've set up in TFS, it would take us a week at the max.

I was working with the engineering team, and that was not under my umbrella. From what I can remember, its license was yearly. They had the licenses on a per-user basis, and they included MTM.

I'm not really sure what they did. It was already in place when I joined the company.

I would advise Microsoft to update the tool. If a lot of users are starting to move to Jira because of the agile environment, Microsoft might want to adapt a little faster and provide similar or better functionality. It has been reliable for a very long time, and I've been really happy with it, but you've got to be able to change with the methodologies and the environments.

I would rate it a six out of 10 because it hasn't changed enough. I would've given it a much higher rating years ago, but because of the lack of evolution and not being able to adapt to the current business needs, its rating is not higher at this point.

I use it  for managing. To manage the project in Git and manage branches in projects. 

Merging branches is definitely one of the more challenging aspects for people new to TFS.

I have been using it for three years. 

Stability is okay. I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a six out of ten. Sometimes, a lot of branches get mixed together, making it difficult to use. I remember struggling with these branch management issues some time ago and even wrote about them. It is so hard to review problems in TFS.

There are around 200 end users using this solution in our organization. 

I found Git to be a better overall experience. Merging branches in TFS, especially merging to the master branch, could be quite difficult. Git seemed to handle it more smoothly. However, after two years, the company decided to switch to Git.

For experienced users, it might be manageable, but for non-technical users like nurses, branching and merging in Git proved difficult. They often had to ask for help from team members because they found it challenging.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.