Azure DevOps (formerly VSTS, Microsoft Visual Studio Team System) is an agile development product that is an extension of the Microsoft Visual Studio architecture. Azure DevOps includes software development, collaboration, and reporting capabilities.
$2
per GB (first 2GB free)
IBM Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
IBM Terraform (formerly Hashicorp Terraform) is a cloud infrastructure automation tool used to create, change, and improve production infrastructure, and it allows infrastructure to be expressed as code. It is available Open Source, and via Cloud and Self-Hosted editions.
$0
Pricing
Azure DevOps
IBM Terraform
Editions & Modules
Azure Artifacts
$2
per GB (first 2GB free)
Basic Plan
$6
per user per month (first 5 users free)
Azure Pipelines - Self-Hosted
$15
per extra parallel job (1 free parallel job with unlimited minutes)
Azure Pipelines - Microsoft Hosted
$40
per parallel job (1,800 minutes free with 1 free parallel job)
This is the first platform our dev team shared to us so I can't really compare but overall its such a great tool to have even if you are not from tech or dev team.
We would use App Center for distributing our app to testers, and we could implement the same functionality as was handled by App Center, and as far as I remember we even had some automatic conversion of our jobs from App Center. After the conversion, we could see that Azure …
We love the multi-tier hierarchy in Azure DevOps for tasks, with epics, features, stories, bugs and tasks all available in a nice nested hierarchy. It's not as pretty as Monday.com and doesn't work as well OOTB as ServiceNow SPM however.
It is a similar tools with its pros and cons but does not really a differential - I would say it does the same but its own way, sometimes better, other times worst. It is a matter of preference or demands that come from superior decisions, so you just have to take it.
Jira is fantastic for project management and customer facing portal. It is not good for pure development (no integration with Git, pipeline management, automated testing features). If DevOps were to integrate and adopt the project features of Jira as well as the customer facing …
The moment I have been working with this tool everything has benn operating efficiently. The software development process has borne positive results under scalable environment. The cost of running Azure DevOps Services us much lower as compared to other tools in the market. It …
ADO has better linking than Confluence and is adaptable for a specific need, whereas Confluence might be a bit more rigid, but it's also sort of along the same lines as to what can be done with both tools. ADO also had an ease of use to it and can do a bunch of stuff with it, …
Jira is super clunky and doesn't behave in a modern fashion. monday.com is too flexible and doesn't provide enough feature set. AWS is the most competitive, but it's hard to wrap your brain around all of the features and offerings provided by amazon. ADO does a better job of …
Azure DevOps has a drag and drop editor so that you can quickly drag build steps into a build or release pipeline. This is much faster than looking up the correct yaml syntax. Additionally, its support for Microsoft and Azure is great. If you're on the .net stack or you use …
Azure DevOps has more services and better integration with other tools. When it. Comes to the overall software development process management ecosystem.
Microsoft Planner is used by project managers and IT service managers across our organization for task tracking and running their team meetings. Azure DevOps works better than Planner for software development teams but might possibly be too complex for non-software teams or …
Trello is simple to use, but it's only for a Kanban board. Jira might be the same, but I don't really have enough experience with Jira to fully compare them. When I used it, it missed certain functionalities that I was used to in Azure DevOps. Visually it's a lot different too.
Azure DevOps Services have huge functionality and are well supported by Microsoft as well. You will get plenty of features in the marketplace and learning documentation.
Writing the Docker Images, Storing them in Azure Container Registry and then Deploying onto Azure Kubernetes Services is an Easier process which no other software/product is currently providing in the market. Best till date in terms of End to End deployment and maintaining …
Azure DevOps is widely used because of its collaboration and integration with various other tools. Here the assign of the sub task is quite easy compare to Jira. Also Azure Devops can we integrate easily with Git for better code representation and versioning. It reporting is …
Azure DevOps is a completed product and ecosystem. It offers a robust ecosystem that does everything that is needed. The above products do lack features like pipelines tasks, third-party integrations. Besides all cloud benefits, the main advantage of Azure DevOps Services …
Currently, we use both products, however, we use more the Atlassian suite. We have started recently using Azure DevOps for specific implementations and projects. We don't have any plan yet to migrate all our projects to Azure DevOps, we may in the next couple of years. …
We tested alternatives for Azure DevOps over time. We tested GitHub a while ago and back then lack of some features that now hast, like the project boards and private repositories. We will check GitHub next year.
We also tested AWS CodeCommit and found it very cryptic, …
Beside all cloud benefits, the main advantage Azure DevOps Services compared to Azure DevOps Server is the easier remote access for third party team members, and always up to date software. On the other hand, on prem deployment (Azure DevOps Server) makes complex access or …
The greatest strength of Azure DevOps Services (formerly VSTS) is that it's a one-stop solution for all agile project management instead of setting up bits of different software put together for each and every need. Azure DevOps Services (formerly VSTS) has a great ecosystem …
I prefer Azure Devops over all other code repository / ci/cd systems that I've used in the past. All features are integrated into a single service (back log, repo mgmt, deployment pipelines, artifacts, etc.). The tools are easy to use and super powerful.
Our company is already using a lot of Azure services and it makes more sense to start using Azure DevOps Services (formerly VSTS) when we needed a CI/CD tool. We tested different features of Azure DevOps Services (formerly VSTS) and found out that the build and release …
AWS CDK is like a cloud-specific alternative to Terraform. As its name suggests, it's from AWS & only works with AWS, a job it does excellently. If your cloud provider is not AWS, then you really only have Terraform to choose. If you are on AWS, it boils down to which one you …
IBM Terraform is better as the providers just work. Ansible is still finicky with their community modules for cloud, especially for Azure. We do not need to build execution environment containers like Ansible. Using statefil for drift analysis is also helpful to review changes …
Dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding. In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate …
HashiCorp Terraform is much better than Cloud Formation. For one, the language is just easier to use, but more importantly, the provider ecosystem is much better in HashiCorp Terraform than in Cloud Formation.
I'm beginning to look at Pulumi. In my opinion, it looks like it would be a good replacement for HashiCorp Terraform, and it has the advantage of configuration via scripting, rather than via HCL, which is HashiCorp Terraform configuration markup language. In my opinion, the …
We have used Vagrant to develop our application in a virtual box environment and prepare it to be packed with Packer. The image created from these two tools will be deployed by Terraform.
We are using Consul for service discovery and as a job locking so we don't have two jobs or …
CloudFormation is only for AWS so if you're trying to deploy to another cloud provider then Terraform is your product. Terraform has lots of public support so you can find answers to questions by Googling. CloudFormation is easy to view the resources/services that are …
Terraform is a large step ahead of the previous generation of infrastructure-as-code providers. I'd never go back to, e.g. Puppet or Chef, Ansible, etc. That said I think that Pulumi has a good chance of displaying it, in no small part because the Terraform language itself …
AWS CloudFormation is better if you just want to stick with AWS because it's integration with AWS is better, provides auto-rollback in case of failures, and has GUI to manage and view the stacks built. Terraform is better when we want to stay cloud-agnostic. Terraform is better …
I can't find these applications listed, but other IaC tools I have used include: AWS CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager Templates, and GCP Cloud Deployment Templates. For a comparable tool, I have the most experience with CloudFormation.
Chef and Terraform are not apples to apples because Chef is more focused on config management, whereas Terraform is more focused on provisioning. However, I can say that where they do overlap in configuration management is that Terraform is the preferred tool because it has an …
Terraform is the solid leader in the space. It allows you to do more then just provisioning within a pre-existing servers. It is more extensible and has more providers available than it competitors. It is also open source and more adopted by the community then some of the other …
Terraform is open source and has strong community support. It is cloud-agnostic versus competing products like AWS cloud formation, hence has a distinct advantage. The scripts once set up are easy for developers to administer during development, hence during production …
- Terraform syntax is much easier to read and learn than Cloud Formation.
- Terraform already supports AWS as well as several other cloud providers.
- Terraform is backed by a great and supportive open-source community.
Terraform shares the methodology of creating configuration files for your infrastructure with tools like CloudFormation. However, Terraform is cloud-agnostic unlike CloudFormation which is AWS specific. Terraform can be used to maintain AWS and OpenStack clusters …
CloudFormation is the lingua franca of AWS. You certainly can't go wrong using it, but I like the syntax and open-source nature of Terraform. That's mostly a personal preference. I have not tried any other non-Amazon tools for provisioning AWS. And, of course, the AWS tools …
DevOps is much more user friendly than Git itself. There is a more GUI-centric interface, tighter integration with the Azure / Entra architecture. For those of use in the Microsoft-sphere, it really is excellent for code-centric project management. I rate this as an 8 because it does not seem quite as well suited for fully functional / non-code project aspects in implementation. Nor does it have customer / end-user portal / front end for easy reporting and insight.
8 because it's currently best-in-class and is completely essential to use in contrast to not expressing your infrastructure as code. That said, new contenders are nipping at its heels, and I expect stronger tools to emerge in the coming years. Hopefully the Terraform team is able to keep pace.
Flexible Requirements Hierarchy Management: AZDO makes it easy to track items such as features or epics as a flat list, or as a hierarchy in which you can track the parent-child relationship.
Fast Data Entry: AZDO was designed to facilitate quick data entry to capture work items quickly, while still enabling detailed capture of acceptance criteria and item properties.
Excel Integration: AZDO stands out for its integration with MS Excel, which enables quick updates for bulk items.
I did mention it has good visibility in terms of linking, but sometimes items do get lost, so if there was a better way to manage that, that would be great.
The wiki is not the prettiest thing to look at, so it could have refinements there.
The errors generated by the plan and preview commands are pretty cryptic, it can be hard for newcomers to the scripting language to understand how to address problems.
Access controls around workspaces is limited which makes it harder to secure reduce the scope of teams ability.
Analytics around user usage, applies and plans would be helpful for managemenet.
I don't think our organization will stray from using VSTS/TFS as we are now looking to upgrade to the 2012 version. Since our business is software development and we want to meet the requirements of CMMI to deliver consistent and high quality software, this SDLC management tool is here to stay. In addition, our company uses a lot of Microsoft products, such as Office 365, Asp.net, etc, and since VSTS/TFS has proved itself invaluable to our own processes and is within the Microsoft family of products, we will continue to use VSTS/TFS for a long, long time.
It's a great help to get more information about new feature release and stay updated on what the dev team is working on. I like how easy it is to just login and read through the work items. Each work item has basic details: Title, Description, Assigned to, State, Area (what it belongs to), and iteration (when it’s worked on). See image above.They move through different states (New → Discovery → Ready for Prod → etc.).
The syntax itself is pretty straightforward. The documentation is well-maintained & easy to follow. Most cloud providers, even smaller ones, maintain official provider libraries, making discovery & learning a breeze. Some, like GCP, even provide high-level libraries on top of their own more primitive provider, making building complex infra much more manageable. The language itself is cloud-agnostic, so you can literally manage resources from multiple providers in a single Terraform repo.
Terraform's performance is quite amazing when it comes to deployment of resources in AWS. Of course, the deployment times depend on various parameters like the number of resources to deploy and different regions to deploy. Terraform cannot control that. The only minor drawback probably shows up when a terraform job is terminated mid way. Then in many cases, time-consuming manual cleanup is required.
When we've had issues, both Microsoft support and the user community have been very responsive. DevOps has an active developer community and frankly, you can find most of your questions already asked and answered there. Microsoft also does a better job than most software vendors I've worked with creating detailed and frequently updated documentation.
Terraform is community driven but does offer support for it's Enterprise product. When contacting the team at HashiCorp we have always gotten resolution to our issues. They have been very responsive in returning our calls and answering our questions as they come up. We are currently using the open source model.
We love the multi-tier hierarchy in Azure DevOps for tasks, with epics, features, stories, bugs and tasks all available in a nice nested hierarchy. It's not as pretty as monday.com and doesn't work as well OOTB as ServiceNow SPM however.
dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding. In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate assets based on variables instead.
Using code, we are able to build and deploy cloud resources faster and more consistently than producing the same resources in the console manually.
For applications that share architectures, we can reuse code to expedite development. We can also do the same with modules that are shared across the organization.
By defining all of our resources as code, we can deploy complete environments with "batteries included." For example, we can use code that spins up servers in a cloud provider and at the same time, creates monitors with in our monitoring provider. Likewise, when the servers are decommissioned, the monitors are decommed along with them. In the past, the creation and decom of the monitors would have been a disjointed, manual step. With Terraform we get it all with one "terraform apply."