We performed a comparison between IBM Engineering Workflow Management and Microsoft Azure DevOps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Agile Planning Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."All of the features work together to provide a powerful holistic solution - from the dashboard all the way through to security."
"Agile templates give us a standard methodology for every Agile project. Also, the ability to create our own object types and linkages to features/epics allows us to enhance the verification of feature readiness."
"The most valuable features of the solution are highly customizable reports and visibility for all the higher management."
"Good for managing stories, sprints, hydration and releases."
"Work distribution among team members and accountability for completion with a clearer picture."
"Traceability reporting is inbuilt and includes all your requirements."
"We can track the status of test cases (passed or saved) in a single view. Based on releases and other attributes, we generate various reports and extract metrics from the data."
"It's a pretty problem-free solution."
"It's very user-friendly, and the documentation is good. The most valuable feature is backlog item creation, where we pick features and other things. The burndown chart created for projects to be maintained by the development teams is also useful."
"We use all the DevOps features and services, like reports, Boards, Pipelines, Artifactory, etc. The interface is interactive and intuitive. The platform visuals and workflow are straightforward in Azure DevOps."
"Everything that's related to the pipeline has been very good."
"The extensibility of the work item forms and customizations as well as the backend API to query the data, et cetera, and manipulate the data programmatically are all very valuable aspects of the product."
"The reports have been most valuable. We have created some dashboards allowing us to be able to check our teams, their progress, and mission plans."
"It is good for the purpose it is designed for. It is good for maintaining a repository of application code, creating pipelines for deploying the code, building the code, and deploying the code. It can be easily used by developers. There are no issues."
"Some of the most valuable features are the ease of use and the ability to monitor a lot of things. It has a lot of applications and facilities that meet all the developers' requirements. For example, we can use application insights to get an idea of our application's performance. Since it's cloud-based, it's really good for collaboration and working as a team."
"If you have multiple projects on one server, the tool becomes very slow, and some reports take longer to load."
"Lacks ability to customize and reporting can be slow."
"We have encountered issues with stability. We have seen where the entire system kind of goes for a toss when certain people use certain types of queries, which are very costly. Then the system kind of slows down a bit, and we have to monitor it."
"The solution is very heavily vendor dependent."
"Some administrative tasks are difficult to perform. These could be simplified."
"Teams need clearer pictures of resource availability in charts and dashboards along with plans."
"The test management section needs to be improved."
"Testing is very important. Microsoft Azure DevOps tests very well. However, DevOps teams need to be aware of what they are impacting when someone updates anything on the system."
"I can't think of anything I would like to improve, since I don't have complete knowledge of the platform yet. I'm sure that as I gain more experience, I will understand it better. The price could maybe be cheaper, but I'm sure I'll have more ideas as to improvements and additional features once I've used it more."
"The main issue that I have is the connection speed. Sometimes, the response is too slow. I am based in Taiwan, and I am not sure if it is because of broadband or something else. Its initial configuration is also a little bit difficult."
"It would be great if I could integrate with a human resource type of software that could control timesheets."
"When converting to DevOps, it was difficult to map."
"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."
"The optimization feature in Microsoft Azure DevOps needs improvement. Control over multiple projects could also be improved."
More IBM Engineering Workflow Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Engineering Workflow Management is ranked 10th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 15 reviews while Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 127 reviews. IBM Engineering Workflow Management is rated 6.8, while Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Engineering Workflow Management writes "Offers good traceability elements but UI needs improvement ". On the other hand, 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". IBM Engineering Workflow Management is most compared with Jira, Codebeamer, GitLab, Polarion ALM and Endevor, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management. See our IBM Engineering Workflow Management vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps report.
See our list of best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Agile Planning Tools 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.