The vendor states CodeStream helps development teams resolve issues faster, and improve code quality by streamlining code reviews inside an IDE. CodeStream enables asynchronous communication among developers on a team, anywhere. Review changes in the context of the full source tree, using preferred keybindings and environments. Use a simple shortcut to highlight code and CodeStream will automatically assign a reviewer based on context and history. Comment and code review threads are…
$10
Per Seat / Per Month
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Score 6.9 out of 10
N/A
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is an end-to-end engineering solution used to manage system requirements to design, workflow, and test management, extending the functionality of ALM tools for better complex-systems development.
N/A
Pricing
CodeStream
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Editions & Modules
Basic
$10.00
Per Seat / Per Month
Enterprise
$49.00
Per Seat / Per Month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CodeStream
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Enterprise tier includes admin console with advanced usage analytics, realtime merge conflict detection, API access, Single sign-on (SSO), premium support and success services
CodeStream is well suited for all developments where two or more people are developing something and I feel there's rarely any project which is been developed and maintained by a single developer. So in short codestream is suitable for almost every development team: - More than one person is developing the code. - People need to get frequent reviews for efficient development. - Best suitable for the teams where new people are there very often. - Collaborations are part of every day to day activities. - Without raising PR and branch management reviews are been incorporated.
IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS former IBM Rational DOORS profits very much from the mighty market position it had till today. It had been the most favored requirement engineering tools suite with the highest investments in the infrastructure concerning hardware, software, and knowledge sources. It was embedded in knowledge sources of test stands, hardware labs, and knowledge database servers. It allowed for some of the highest profit changes and made the fame with it. But the paradigms of requirements engineering change. If not were superseded by completely different approaches for the target solution worlds. The foremost position in the selling tables is unstable if changes are not solved or coped with by the strategist at IBM and their customers. Since the highly successful alternative suits are already at the market, and some are from IBM already the lifecycle for IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS is at the later highs. But the suite is still at the very top and very popular. There are still many problems unsolved and many wishes at the customers to make the use more comfortable and efficient at the overall level. If the time of setting up the software package is passed the adoption get more extended and complicated. There is a lot of work at the stage around and the expertise will be required for a long time from now.
Easy to use with well defined template and user defined fields. New team can setup a project area easily by copying an existing template and adding customized fields for their special needs.
It can be used during almost the whole project cycle and give us a better view and control on the projects.
Wireframes are quite basic. If you need intuitive and interactive wireframes to elaborate the requirements. you probably need to define outside the tool and then upload as image.
ER (define data dictionaries) modeling is not there.
Use case modeling is quite basic. You can visualize the use case and actors relation but the tool does not enforce the rules.
At the moment we are required by contract to continue to use the IBM DOORS software for our current client. Given that it can be expensive, if we were to use it after our current client's needs were met, we would have to secure other projects in order to justify the continued use of the software.
The UI is terrible and not intuitive. Users need training in order to complete tasks. Much like SAP, it's not the clearest tool. The tracing feature is especially complicated because you must write the scripts yourself. There is a learning curve. Also, even the setup, installation, and logging in each time takes a considerable amount of time.
It does a basic job and has the potential to complete some robust reporting tasks, however, it really is a clunky piece of software with a terrible user interface that makes using it routinely quite unpleasant. Many of our legacy and maintenance projects still use DOORS but our department and company use many alternatives and are looking for better tools.
When compared to Bitbucket, CodeStream is a luck lustre. Even though the overall features are more with CodeStream like customisation of API and more control of triggers across the designed pipeline, Bitbucket and Visual Studio score better in terms of faster implementation and dedicated and proven support system . Apart from that CodeStream fairs better than AWS CodePipeline in overall features
It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect management. The overall cost of the tool is great too and well within budget.
