codeBeamer ALM vs. MetricStream Platform

In my opinion codeBeamer is well suited for any activity where detailed tracking is needed with teams involved. It can be less suited for small projects which do not last long, or are not continuous, etc

MetricStream is well suited for when you need to pull a report into Excel for further analysis. It is not good for when information needs to be entered as this is all done manually by analysts and managers. If we can implement a way to take parts of uploaded documents and have the system automatically enter the information in the designated fields in MetricStream, it would cut out lots of manual work for our department.

Incentivized

• Tracing of requirements.
• Tracking of development.
• Tracking of QA.
• Tracking of bugs.
• Tracking of releases.
• Wiki.
• Users and teams.
• Works for teams scattered across the globe.
• Testing and coverage for releases.
• Integration with SVN.

• Easy to navigate.

Incentivized

• Search.
• Metric calculation.
• Would be nice that cB is a source of truth, i.e., that say SVN commit is done only from cB; know this is difficult to achieve.

• Speed/efficiency.
• Missing functionality: Uploading documents (Excel sheets) into MetricStream and being able to pull information from that form into the program.
• Improve number of outages and time that it is out for.

Incentivized

Sometimes info in codeBeamer can be lost, in principle, if not well organized by the user, info can never be found, or can be forgotten about, etc

Excellent support professionally. Also, thanks for giving me for free access to SaaS cB for my hobbyist project.

codeBeamer is by far better.

Archer is more risk-management-friendly in that it has a better interface and more room to conduct risk-related tasks and pull reports.

Incentivized

• Customer tracking.
• Process tracking.
• Workflow framework.
• Can be overhead.

• It keeps records of all of our vendors and the corresponding documents.
• Other departments can access information on vendors.

Incentivized