Digital.ai TeamForge vs. qmsWrapper

CollabNet TeamForge is more well-suited for technically knowledgeable users such as developers, systems analysts, QA but not for non-technical users due to the technical data used throughout the tool. CollabNet TeamForge is appropriate for most applications development. In any industry especially suited for high demand software delivery environments.

Incentivized

• Code security.
• Code migration.
• Agile tie-in.

Incentivized

• I would like to see personalization for managing artifacts, that is, allowing the user to customize pages and save personalized settings and then save them as bookmarks.
• I would like an improved subversion browser such as a graphical user interface rather than a basic file explorer.
• I would like built in features for CollabNet TeamForge integrated with subversion so that i can associate my private code branches and code changes.

Incentivized

They always answer the phone when we put a call in, any time. They have consistently sent out contractors when needed and were there every step of the way when we switched over from ClearCase to TeamForge years ago. The support is what you really pay for when you buy into TeamForge.

Incentivized

CollabNet TeamForge is superior to Mercury mainly because it has a subversion change management tool integrated with the product. CollabNet TeamForge offers more complexity but with more flexibility for managing and tracking projects. I think
CollabNet TeamForge is more comprehensive than either Mercury and JIRA. They're all user friendly tools with short learning curves but CollabNet TeamForge is most efficient in my experience.
JIRA was recently adopted for particular applications and is currently being evaluated by various technology teams.

Incentivized

• Unfortunately, I do not have access to ROI information.

Incentivized