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
OpenText Silk Central
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
Formerly from Micro Focus and earliler from Borland, unified test management with OpenText™ Silk Central drives reuse and efficiency. It gives users the visibility to control application readiness.
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 …
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
We didn't just select Borland Silk Central randomly. In the selection process, we actually evaluated in total 26 available test management tools in the market. We sent surveys to all potential users in the department to collect their wish list of our next management tool, converted them to a criteria list, and used that list to evaluate all 26 tools. We reduced the possible candidate tools to five and organized a small committee to pick the final three. Top management then checked their price tags and selected Borland Silk Central. Based on this evaluation process, I would say Borland Silk Central is suitable to an organization which has no more than 60 testers; needs both manual tests and automated tests; needs on-line support; needs a low learning curve and has a limited budget. My personal view is that this tool reaches the balance points among ease-of-use, budget and support.
Borland Silk Central is good for the users to associate test requirements, test cases, execution plans and test reports together. Each asset (test case, requirement, etc...) provides links for the users to jump to other assets in a click, and the users can jump back and forth between two assets.
Borland Silk Central is also good in test automation. Although Micro Focus does provide a client tool for test automation, the users don't really need it to automate the tests. In our case, we are using Python to automate the tests and use a batch file to launch tests, and in Borland Silk Central we just call that batch file from server side. The test result is automatically fed back to Silk server.
Micro Focus also publishes the schema of the database behind Borland Silk Central, so it is very easy to extend its function beyond its original design. Moreover, because its schema is published, we can easily retrieve and process its data for business intelligence purpose.
On the other hand, the plugins of Borland Silk Central with third-party tools are programmed poorly. In our case, the plugins for JIRA have a lot of limitations and were almost unusable in our test environment. (They did improve the plugins a little bit later, however.)
The tech support people are located in UK, so frequently it is difficult to get a hold of these guys due to different time zones. Also, most of them obviously don't have enough experience and sometimes drove us nuts in emergency situations.
The last thing I feel is that Micro Focus possibly doesn't provide enough manpower to maintain Borland Silk Central. There are tons of feature requests for Borland Silk Central pending there. Although they have frequent hot fixes every few months, they don't digest these requests quick enough.
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.
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
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.
IBM Collaborate Suite - it is way too complicated and the learning curve is too high.
HP Quality Center - it is OK but a little bit expensive.
TestLink, Squash TM and other open source tools: The capabilities of open source tools just can't compare to commercial tools. Although we can modify the source code to improve the tool, we are just test engineers, not developers.
Zephyr: Our testers simply didn't like its UI - too weird.
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.
Borland Silk Central provides a centralized test platform for multiple test departments in the company, so now all of the departments know what each of them is doing. In turn, all departments can coordinate with each other to reduce the duplicated test items and increase the overall test efficiency.
Also, Borland Silk Central enables the users to publish the test procedure (steps) of each test case so all the users can know how each test case is performed. It is not like what we had before, the test procedures resided in difference place from Excel to Google drive or some other weird locations.
Also, because all departments are using Borland Silk Central, all testers of the departments have better communication regarding testing methods. In the past, the department used different test management tools and it was hard for the testers to understand each other's testing methods.
Finally, because all departments share BorlandSilk Central, they also share the same set of reports published to Atlassian Confluence, so now they use the same set of reports to evaluate the test progress.