OpenText AccuRev vs. Spinnaker

Very slow and not intuitive; it would be my last choice for version control systems.The UI is a little confusing at times and seems a little outdated. It needs a lot of improvement. It is suited for small projects and fewer number of projects. But if there are huge projects and many projects to be maintained in a portfolio, its a little hard to manage.

Incentivized

Spinnaker suits well for applications which are stateless and can adapt to an immutable architecture of deployment. But for applications which are stateful and cannot afford to spin up new servers for every deployment doesn't go well with Spinnaker. It can handle only deployments which are VM based and cannot support deployments to serverless architecture like AWS Lambda etc.

Incentivized

• One place for most recent code with history, avoid any conflict/confusion among other team/members.
• Stream/Workflow approach to control approval process betwen all the teams, which I couldn't find in other version control tools I worked.
• Bundle our code in a small group (called, Issues in Accurev) to differentiate between different projects.

Incentivized

• Fast deployments.
• Can be integrated with a good variety of other products.
• Also provides some insights from your environment.

Incentivized

• Ability to zoom in/out for stream-view. We currently have many streams/substreams and unable to view the entire workflow. Zooming in/out would benefit.
• Being a designer, I use Adobe Flash and SWF files. When updating the SWF files, Accurev does not see these files as being changed and you will be unable to promote. In order to push changes, you must totally rename the SWF file.

Incentivized

• It does NOT support CFN based deployments
• Windows based systems finds it difficult to onboard to Spinnaker.
• Pipeline level access authorisation is not there.
• Support for EBS volume encryption is probably missing.
• Attach/detach EBS volumes during deployments is difficult.
• No support to deploy the artifacts without re-creating the servers. Only pure immutable deployment are allowed.
• Open-source - so good and bad!
• Spinnaker on its own has 10 underlying micro services. Managing Spinnaker needs a focussed platform approach.
• User authentication is easy but authorisation management is not straight forward.

Incentivized

We will renew because it is part of our build process.

Incentivized

In my view, accurev ranks very low compared to other tools I have used. Microsoft TFS is the best in the industry as of today as it's a complete ALM solution. It does code version, bug tracking, user story documentation, and has easy integration with other external tools supporting many languages. So I would definitely recommend TFS to anyone.

Incentivized

• Pipeline Expressiveness • Self-Service/Override • Visibility of Client Teams • Operability of Client Teams - • High-Quality Integrations (AWS, IHP, Google) • Extensibility – (Ability to add code) • The maturity of Deployment Process • Speed/Ease of Onboarding

Incentivized

• Better team coordination.
• Avoid confusion by having one place for all documentation and code.
• Better project management by having different work streams.

Incentivized

• By using Spinnaker we are able to deploy new versions of our product quickly.
• A deployment takes in average 2 minutes.
• Our investment on Spinnaker was just time learning it.

Incentivized