Azure DevOps Server (formerly Team Foundation Server, or TFS) is the on-premise version of Azure DevOps. To license Azure DevOps Server an Azure DevOps license and a Windows operating system license (e.g. Windows Server) for each machine running Azure DevOps Server.
N/A
CircleCI
Score 9.4 out of 10
N/A
CircleCI is a software delivery engine from the company of the same name in San Francisco, that helps teams ship software faster, offering their platform for Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD). Ultimately, the solution helps to map every source of change for software teams, so they can accelerate innovation and growth.
Jira has been growing in hardware design teams since is being integrated with CAD software. The best of Azure is that you can manage since level of access control to multiple types of teams. Another bonus is that Jira has more mobile features that let your team stay connected …
Because of the microsoft ecosystem and the product is also build on ms services cloud which uses azure internal services so it is easy to integrate. more reliant support available for the microsoft services because of the well established user community of the product and …
Azure DevOps is a fully integrated solution that solves all of the problems that our separate tools did in a much easier-to-use way. Before we implemented DevOps we had three different solutions that we had to integrate with each other and required a lot of manual intervention …
Managing projects is a breeze using Azure DevOps Server, and the tool also automates testing and checks to see if the project is within its scope. Intuitive, with a low learning curve for novice users; it's also simple to collaborate on projects and keep tabs on their progress …
Honestly speaking, GitHub is better in terms of version control and JIRA has better functionality when it comes to Agile boards, other than that, the UI could have been a bit better for Azure DevOps Server. In all other areas, I feel overall Azure DevOps Server is better.
In my opinion, DevOps covers the development process end to end way better than JIRA or GitHub. Both competitors are nice in their specific fields but DevOps provides a more comprehensive package in my opinion. It is still crazy to see that the whole suite can be used for free. …
I was new to the agile methodology when it was first introduced to the Enterprise. Different project teams opted to leverage different project management tools, two of the most common being Jira and DevOps. For someone overcoming a huge learning curve already, I felt that …
My organization already has an established Microsoft relationship which allowed us to move faster in procuring the product. The alternative would require my large organization to move at a snail's pace at procurement. This is not necessarily a hindrance for most other …
Overall Atlassian products seem to be less stable. Azure DevOps [Server (formerly Team Foundation Server)] also has Test Center and Build functionality built in. This prevents needing a handful of separate products loosely coupled together to get a comprehensive solution to …
I was not involved in the purchase decision for this product. Since I have started working at my company, we have always used [Azure DevOps Server]. So I can't comment on how it performs vs its competitors. I have used many project management tools that are not as robust, but I …
I've used and currently use JIRA, which is a similar software to Azure DevOps Server. Azure DevOps Server is more detailed and comprehensive than JIRA. They both offer many of the same features and capabilities but Azure has a better overall interface and is more in-depth. It …
Azure DevOps Server is a fantastic tool and my favorite for organization and management of large application building projects. It was selected for its ease of use with a user-friendly design that allows any team members, particularly outside of developers, to quickly get up to …
At the time we brought Azure DevOps in-house it really was the only game in town. Our company migrated from Visual SourceSafe to TFS to Azure DevOps without any issues or downtime. Git isn't overly intuitive so I never recommend it and shy away from it. I loved it when …
Microsoft Azure DevOps is the one that integrates everything you can possibly use and provides a solution that eases your developing process. It has a strong support community and well-written documentation. No matter what you do, you will always find the right pipeline. It is …
Azure DevOps server has quite an upper hand while we compare it with other tools in the market. Its not just a tool in fact its been a complete suit. If we look out at other products available as alternative options to Azure DevOps Server, they are meant for a specific purpose …
TFS gives and edge over JIRA for inbuilt version controlling that TFS has. TFS provides a GIT version control repository that offers centralized TFVC and distributed GIT Version control. Version controlling is a key feature that promoted TFS over JIRA in the implementation of a …
The advantage of Team Foundation Server is the integration capability with Microsoft technologies and products, such as Visual Studio. Although this is an important consideration, Team Foundation Server is not a straightforward tool and needs to be improved to work seamlessly …
Git and GitHub are very popular right now and they are OK. But they do not integrate automated Testing and Building... The Work Item Management of Jira is about as complicated as the one of TFS so we use Trello. The other Source Control Systems are more complex to use because …
CircleCI shines with its specialized infrastructure. Its dedicated macOS runners ensure blazing-fast iOS builds, while intelligent Docker layer caching significantly reduces backend build times and costs. The ability to SSH directly into failed builds dramatically accelerates …
Based on the cost for feature set that we needed we went with CircleCI. There were also more people on our team that knew how to use CircleCI already compared to other products which made it a preferred choice for ramp up. Other products were not as robust and quick to …
We use CircleCI when we need a good, independent CI/CD provider in an existing workflow. That said, we've begun investing more heavily in GitHub actions as it's closer to where our code is stored. CircleCI is a feature of a workflow, and can be filled by many different service …
CircleCI is a sass product which means you don't need to maintain your own servers. This can also be a negative as you are dependent on their service. This also means you can't ssh into a machine to see what went wrong like you can with Jenkins. However for most users this …
Because the Travis CI features are not very good, it has a lot of problems with concurrency and the uptime of the on-cloud solution was the worst we have ever tried.
CircleCI seemed to have a quicker setup than other similar products, with a good integration with GitHub repos. Projects are quick and easy to set up within the UI, and workflows can then be created off the back of those fairly intuitively. Clever interpretation of commit …
CircleCI is the company that is innovating compared to the other ones. I think it's a great piece of software compared to other open source options that don't have as much functionality and improved capability over time.
While the UI on CircleCI is not my favorite, it's leagues better than Travis CI. I really like Heroku CI much better, but the functionality is much more limited there. If Heroku CI had the same functionality as CircleCI, I probably wouldn't use CircleCI.
Jenkins and Teamcity both have additional features that maybe you require, but they are also a lot more work to get set up and working. There's a much longer learning curve to getting these configured for a simple build. They're not hosted, so you have to maintain the …
CircleCI does a lot of what we need it to do; however, I believe Jenkins is a better Continuous Integration tool. Jenkins has more capabilities and integrations. In addition, Jenkins is a much more widely used tool, which means more developers are familiar with it and have …
Not having to manage / deal with a Jenkins server is fantastic. I don't have much personally against Jenkins. I've set up and run a Jenkins server before. It's just complexity that doesn't really have much to do with the business beyond getting our software to our customers. My …
Since CircleCI gave us its infrastructure we don't have to worry about servers, provisioning and maintenance. Also CircleCI provides us great features to increase speed of builds by adding more containers to the build. Jenkins is the best open source alternative but it requires …
Jenkins is usually self-hosted, Travis CI's infrastructure is largely unreliable (lots of tests time out for no discernable reason), and Semaphore encourages you to configure your CI/CD from a web UI. We like CircleCI because its hosted, our tests run largely as expected on …
It was our CTO who did the evaluation, not me, but as I recall other services weren't as parallelizable. We knew we wanted to run on many containers simultaneously for fast test results.
For us it really came down to CricleCI being the fastest and simples tool to get started with. The GitHub integration is slick and seamless and the scripting config file allowed us to configure our entire build system, including tests, in less than a day. It's very light weight …
Circle was the first CI with simple setup, great documentation, and tight integration with Github. Using Jenkins was too much maintenance and overhead, TeamCity was limited in how we could customize it and run concurrent builds, TravisCI was not available for private repos when …
Travis has full YML configuration in areas where CircleCI is slightly lacking still, which is great, but CircleCI offers more features, settings, and potential performance.
Codeship is simpler to use, you can use it entirely from their UI without modifying your Git repository at …
Travis CI is great for open source projects – it's completely free, but CircleCI offers some support for closed projects as well. CircleCI has cheaper pricing plans, and you are able to customize them as much as you want. At Travis CI you can select only a predefined amount of …
The biggest downside to CircleCI is that it doesn't support parameterized builds, that is testing your code against language version X and Y, or framework version A and B. Beyond that, it is really a great product.
I had used Travis CI in some of my open source projects. However, it was too expensive for us so I looked for an alternative that was in our budget. Scrutinizer is also very useful, but also out of our budget. When we get larger I could see myself using Scrutinizer for quality …
I think these three tools are just as good as the other except that Travis CI supports mobile a lot better but price wise, CircleCI is the best that I have found and is supports the need for a startup. For a long while, CircleCI had Docker support before Codeship but now, …
In our case it was best suited when we started working remotely, we were able to track everything in out projects easily, able to share our codes, give reviews for the codes and also create integration and deployment CI/CD plans for the release and testing. It helped our team members with the productivity, early prototyping and release. Create summarised reports of different aspect of our projects. Even in other scenarios it is one of the best tools to use for collaboration and project management. I haven't found any specific scenario where it is not appropriate
CircleCI is perfect for a CI/CD pipeline for an app using a standard build process. It'll take more work for a complex build process, but should still be up to the task unless you need a lot of integrations with other tools. If you have a big team and can spare someone to focus full time on just the CI/CD tools, maybe something like Jenkins is better, but if you're just looking to get your app built, tested, and delivered without a huge amount of effort, CircleCI is probably your preferred tool.
GitHub integration is seamless. Never had a problem with it missing commits.
Robust test environment. I used Travis in the past but tests would sporadically time out for no clear reason, haven't had that happen with CircleCI
Poweful YAML-based configuration in the GitHub repo itself. I don't like CI tools like Semaphore that push you into managing your CI/CD through a web UI, I prefer managing a config file and never having to log in to the CI tool.
It would be nice if you could configure everything via the YML file. Some things are only available via YML, and some things are actually only available in the UI, and many other things have full overlap between the two. I'm sure there are good reasons for this, but this is a pretty confusing situation. For example, certain PHP versions are only available on certain Ubuntu releases. Configuring the PHP version is done via the .yml file, but configuring the Ubuntu release being used for the build has to be done in the UI. This can easily lead to things not building properly.
Because we are a Microsoft Gold Partner we utilize most of their software and we have so much invested in Team Foundation Server now it would take a catastrophic amount of time and resources to switch to a different product.
For standard users the interface is friendly. but if you are a manager some tools are a little confusing to use, like the query system that you always need to create from scratch. Templates should be more helpful for queries and for standard procedures that you need to duplicate PBIs over time. The search history of Work Items is a little painful to use.
The reliability & speed, it just works. The ability to spin up macOS runners and Docker containers on demand without managing hardware is a huge win. The Orbs system makes integrating with AWS and Slack incredibly easy, saving us weeks of custom scripting and providing real-time updates in our Slack channel. This makes it easy for us to track and ensures that everyone involved knows the status. Of course, it has drawbacks related to configuration complexity and, in some cases, cost transparency, but overall, it is an industry-standard, robust tool that solves our core infrastructure problems well.
It's pretty snappy, even with using workflows with multiple steps and different docker images. I've seen builds take a long time if it's really involved, but from what I can tell, it's still at least on par if not faster than other build tools.
I have not had to use the support for Azure DevOps Server. There have never been any issues where I was not able to figure it out or quickly resolve. Our Scrum Master has used support before though, and the service has always been prompt and clear with a customer-focus
Unless you have a reasonably large account, you're going to be mainly stuck reading their documentation. Which has improved somewhat over the years but is still extremely limited compared to a platform like Digital Ocean who invested in the documentation and a community to ensure it's kept up to date. If you can't find your answer there, you can be stuck.
Azure DevOps is a fully integrated solution that solves all of the problems that our separate tools did in a much easier-to-use way. Before we implemented DevOps we had three different solutions that we had to integrate with each other and required a lot of manual intervention to make sure they worked correctly.
CircleCI shines with its specialized infrastructure. Its dedicated macOS runners ensure blazing-fast iOS builds, while intelligent Docker layer caching significantly reduces backend build times and costs. The ability to SSH directly into failed builds dramatically accelerates debugging. Furthermore, its certified Orbs provide standardized, secure integrations with AWS and Slack, reducing the stability and security risks often associated with unverified community plugins on competing platforms such as GitHub Actions.
It has streamlined the pipeline and project management for our agile effort.
It has helped our agile team get organized since that is a new methodology being leveraged within the Enterprise.
The calendar has improved visibility into different OOOs across the project team since we all come from different departments across the larger organization.