Microsoft Azure DevOps Reviews

We use the solution mostly for automation, deployment, generating build, and creating virtual machines.

The build and release management features are valuable. The deployment packages are also valuable.

Requirements traceability must be customizable. It is very difficult to integrate the product with third-party tools. It is all proprietary. It's not very customizable. It should be managed better. The product is not sufficient to generate documentation automatically.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The tool’s stability is good. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

We have around 60 users in our organization.

The turnaround time is high.

My team set up the solution. It took one and a half years to stabilize.

The tool helps us save reasonably.

The solution is expensive.

Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We use Azure Repos for most things. It integrates with Azure Boards. 

It's good for the ticketing part and for saving the Azure Repos. We use Terraform.

Azure DevOps integrations with other tools have streamlined our workflows.

The centralized code repository is a major part. We store code and collaborate, and everyone can see what others are doing and what code they're adding. We can review the code and make changes if needed. 

The same code used for implementation is visible to other team members, allowing them to contribute. Additionally, the Azure board interface helps create tickets and assign workloads, keeping everyone informed about progress.

Azure DevOps is effective for repository management and code collaboration. We can create branches, differentiate between code versions, save and review code later, get PR approvals, and more. All these features are valuable.

There is room for improvement in customer service and support. Sometimes, I create a ticket for a specific issue, and they tell me it's not relevant to that ticket. 

They ask me to create a different one, basically saying they can't help with the current one. It's a communication gap. We're troubleshooting, so we don't always know the exact issue. They should let us stick with the same ticket and maybe assign a different engineer if needed. These areas definitely need improvement.

Another area is the Azure monitoring agent for Citrix machines. There's room for improvement there too.

I have been using this solution for four months. 

It's a very refined tool from Microsoft, so there haven't been any problems with stability for us.

Scalability is great. We can add as much code as we need, and the deployed code volume can also be scaled. 

The scalability comes in the sense of creating virtual machines using IaaS, which works really well within the suite.

I'm on the DevOps team, and around 25 to 30 of us in the team itself use Azure DevOps. So, overall, there are a lot of end users in my company. 

The customer service and support are good, but there are some issues when we're doing a deployment and need clarification. They're not very helpful there. Maybe there's a separate team for that. 

But in general, for project creation and work, after everything is deployed, Microsoft can help with a general support ticket. But they won't help with the planning phase. They're more like big management. So, there's a gap in the assistance we need for new project deployments.

Neutral

For ticketing, we use ServiceNow. Both solve the same problem in that regard. And for code repositories, we use GitHub. So, it's not an all-in-one solution like Azure DevOps, which has a lot of features bundled together.

Since Azure DevOps offers everything in one place, it feels more convenient. It does a bit of everything. So it's a good option because it replaces various individual tools and provides all their services in one package.

It is very straightforward. It was easy for me to deploy. 

The deployment depends on the workloads we have. For example, deployment for setting up Azure DevOps or the application itself isn't the same.

It takes a lot of time to get the setup ready. 

Regarding setup, connecting it to Visual Studio was smooth on both Mac and Windows. Integrations are quite good. 

Deployments depend on the workload. We create virtual machines using Terraform, so it's usually fast, especially when downloading repos from Azure Repos.

Smaller tasks like deploying a prepared code for a single service wouldn't require additional engineers. Many workflows can be handled by one person. 

Architecture is different, as the architect designs the infrastructure, which needs to be followed.

ROI depends on the cost optimization we can achieve. Sometimes, clients use heavier resources than they actually need. So it depends. 

If the environment is fully optimized, there can be significant savings, leading to a good return on investment. But they would also be paying for partner management. 

For Microsoft, it can get expensive when you need heavy-duty machines. But compared to on-premises solutions or the hardware we used before, it's still much more convenient for us. So even though it can be pricey, the benefits outweigh the cost in our case.

Maybe some more flexible payment options could improve the pricing. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We rely on Azure DevOps for our CI/CD workflows. We use it extensively in our daily operations, particularly for deployments and other IT tasks. We use it for project management and collaboration throughout our software development lifecycle. Our task is to determine if the workflow within our networks is integrated with our ITSM or focused management, enabling us to initiate tracking for these tasks.

The reporting and analytics features of Azure DevOps significantly improve our project visibility and decision-making process. This includes a reporting dashboard and integrated monitoring capabilities. We utilize Prometheus and other tools for monitoring, and Azure DevOps seamlessly integrates with various solutions, ensuring flexibility in usage while maintaining consistent concepts.

Azure DevOps has significantly enhanced the productivity and efficiency of our development team, especially considering our high volume of daily deployments. Developers find it invaluable for tracking changes, generating logs, and creating reports effortlessly. Automation of deployments is particularly crucial for us, given our extensive environment with over two thousand fifty-three instances. The most significant benefit is the reduction in time and effort, leading to a decrease in human errors.

Integrating our pipeline with Jenkins is seamless, particularly for code management using Git repositories. Additionally, for cloud-based applications, we already have native network integration with Azure Active Directory.

As we frequently deploy numerous applications, ensuring the protection and fine-tuning of these applications once they are in production is crucial for minimizing downtime and enhancing availability.

The features of Azure Repos that we find most impactful are those related to source control management within our DevOps code management processes.

If the pipeline isn't properly configured, it indicates a potential gap in the team's understanding of DevOps principles, which can lead to deployment issues. Incorporating security tools directly into DevOps is crucial, as many existing DevOps solutions lack robust security features.

I have been working with it for nine years.

We encountered certain downtime.

It doesn't provide the level of scalability as Jenkins provides. We have approximately forty users in our company. I would rate it six out of ten.

The technical support is relatively satisfactory. I would rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

Deploying GitLab or Jenkins is much easier and involves fewer requirements. Integration with various tools is readily available, especially with Jenkins Blue Ocean, which offers extensive enterprise integrations. When it comes to Azure DevOps, integration with non-Microsoft tools may pose challenges.

For any Microsoft product, Active Directory is a prerequisite, and ensuring its availability on the Azure Standard and Database is essential. This configuration is necessary for setting up the application effectively.

Maintenance is essential due to occasional exclusivity with business connectivity, leading to various issues such as data rate problems and database availability issues.

When compared to other vendors, it is cheaper.

I would recommend other tools like GitLab or Jenkins. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

My clients use Azure DevOps primarily for managing code deployment pipelines. We follow a structured process of pushing code from the development environment to testing and then to production, and Azure DevOps is crucial in this workflow. We leverage its version control capabilities to maintain and track our codebase efficiently. Additionally, we make use of its dashboard service to monitor and manage employee hours, helping us keep a close eye on project timelines and resource allocation.

The most valuable aspect of Azure DevOps for me is its robust version control functionality, which is critical for our workflow. I find it particularly useful how easy it is to automate pipelines. When we push code changes, the system automatically runs the entire pipeline, and the clear visualization of logs is a great benefit. This feature allows us to quickly pinpoint issues and understand what went wrong with our processes or tools, making troubleshooting much more efficient.

While there is always room for improvement, I don't have any urgent issues or specific feature requests right now. I'm content with Azure DevOps as it is. Its functions are standard and easy to use for those familiar with such tools. However, the only thing that could be improved is the stability of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Azure DevOps for two months.

The solution is generally stable but not entirely issue-free. While problems do occur occasionally, they have become less frequent, occurring around six times less often than before. For example, a recent issue occurred when a dependency was updated, causing the pipeline to crash. However, with the help of logs and troubleshooting, we were able to identify and resolve the problem by making adjustments to the Docker file. I would rate the stability as an eight out of ten. There is room for improvement in terms of stability, as there are occasional issues that require manual intervention to address. While progress has been made, there is a desire to achieve a level of stability where network removal is not necessary in the first place.

Azure DevOps is highly scalable and works effectively even for large-scale projects. It can handle the demands of extensive engineering work and is generally robust in terms of scalability.

The technical support is good and quite responsive.

I have experience with using GitLab. Comparing GitLab and Azure DevOps, GitLab excels in functionality and offers excellent integration capabilities with Azure DevOps. However, Azure DevOps has a more user-friendly UI. The choice between the two depends on specific project needs and preferences.

The installation of Azure DevOps is straightforward because it is a web-based platform. You don't need to create solutions or go through complex setup procedures, making it a user-friendly option. Maintenance for Azure DevOps is minimal, especially if you have automated processes in place. If your solution uses Docker and you have set up automated updates on Docker Hub, the environment can essentially upgrade itself without much proactive maintenance. However, if issues arise, you can make adjustments to the configurations as needed, allowing for a more reactive approach to maintenance.

My advice to those looking to use Azure DevOps would be to make good use of the documentation available on their website. It is a valuable resource that can help answer questions and provide clarity on various aspects of the platform. Overall, I would rate Microsoft Azure DevOps as an eight out of ten.

We are a team of 12 consultants specializing in this solution. We have customers with approximately 200 users each, and we have been able to reduce our customers' deployment time by using Azure DevOps or TFS.

Additionally, our customers have been able to measure and improve their development process, by generating some KPI's as 'average defect fixing time', 'effort deviation', and 'velocity' among others, due to the continuous use of Azure DevOps.

The integration of the whole cycle is the main strength of the tool. If I want to control the cycle with other tools on the market, I would have to use several tools. However, this is not the case with Azure DevOps or TFS.

The ability to extend work items was more flexible than it is now. Talking version control, one of our customers had some issues because they found it very difficult to manage more than 1000 repositories for one team project.

Additionally, I would like to see more powerful dashboards that could be used instead of Power BI. Azure DevOps or TFS does not support graphics from hierarchy queries. It would be powerful to have because some customers don't have Power BI licenses.

We have been working with Azure DevOps or TFS for the past 11 years.

It is totally stable.

The documentation is good and thus, we have not had to contact technical support very often. However, when we have escalated an issue to technical support, they have been good.

The initial setup can be straightforward if the consultant is knowledgeable.

The pricing is very competitive because of the whole development cycle by Azure DevOps. You don't have to buy and integrate several different tools.

Azure DevOps or TFS is a very good tool for development teams. It's easy to use. However, you would need the help of a consultant who has a lot of experience with the tool. This is because the tool let's you do things in many ways, but not all of them will be the right way to do it. It would be better to invest in the services of an experienced consultant.

Overall, I would rate TFS or Azure DevOps at nine out of ten.

There are many valuable features including dashboards, sprints, queries, pipelines, artifacts, and the cover repository.

I would like to see improvement in the metrics and the dependencies. I would also like to see the option to define the dependencies within all teams in the same project. We have a team level, a program level, and a portfolio level. For the metrics portion, I would like to see some drag-and-drop features for the dashboards that would make it possible to aggregate data from the different teams.

The plugin for the iteration walls can also use improvement as it does not work well.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is stable. Whenever there has been an issue the solution slowed down but there was never any data loss.

The solution appears to be scalable.

I am not familiar with the initial setup.

The implementation was done in-house.

The cost is reasonable. For the basic license, it is around five euros per month. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten.

If someone is considering developing and deploying the infrastructure in this solution, then using this tool is perfect because it's fully integrated with the pipelines and with a server core repository. When you are building infrastructure, then you are able to use the same tool to deploy the server, deploy infrastructure, and all within a few minutes. This gives you access to the same tool, task management, dashboards, pipelines, and the server core repository. So everything you need to develop a server is integrated into the same tool.

We use it for requirements, development work, and testing. 

We're doing an implementation at the moment with the client. So, it is the latest version that would've been uploaded.

It is a cloud-based system. So, it is stable and scalable.

Azure DevOps is set up more for development and less for testing. If it is set up correctly, everyone can use it better, but it was set up from a development point of view, which means it is lacking in what I need from a testing perspective. Just like any other tool, it depends on how it is configured. I am not happy with the way it is set up. It is configured more from a development side, and it doesn't necessarily cater to all the other areas that probably need to use it, such as testing data, etc.

I have been using this solution for about 15 months.

Its stability and performance are okay. It is on the cloud. As long as you have got access to it, it is stable.

It is a cloud-based system. So, you can add more bandwidth. It is scalable on the cloud.

We have about a hundred users who are using this solution. It is used on a daily basis.

A third party deals with the technical support of it at the moment.

I wasn't around when they initially set it up, but the way it is set up, it is too complex. It is probably good for developers, but it is not good for the testing side. 

It is a third party that sets it up. I don't know about its maintenance because I'm not that close to it.

I would advise organizing and doing the right assessment for all teams that are going to use it. When it is being set up, more people within the program need to be involved in the setup, not just the developers. You need to know about the requirements for design, development, testing, integrations, and architecture. You need to solicit requirements on what each one of these teams needs from the tool before the tool is configured. When you set something up only from the development perspective, you forget that there would be a need to extract information for data testing and training. So, you need to assess who all are going to use the tool so that you set it up for maximum usage.

At this time, I'd rather not recommend it because it wasn't set up correctly. It wasn't set up with other teams involved. In a year's time, if I'm working on it again, I may have a different opinion.

I would rate it a five out of 10.

When I was working at Microsoft, I was one of the core influencers on the feature set and had deployed this solution internally across several organizations. We used it for anything from its CoreALM feature sets to inventory tracking and workflow management and operation support and finance management. There were a bunch of other scenarios. At its core, it is a database with a front end that easily makes it so that you can create new forms and stuff. Then they expose an API, which means you can do a lot of things with it beyond its core use cases.

It becomes a single source of truth for whatever operation is implemented within it. You can have your product definition in there from a requirements management standpoint and then log in bugs and defect management and RPNs and a bunch of other things. You have this single source of truth as they provide an analytics service, and then also easily tie into Power BI. It's really easy to just look at the health and overall operation of your entire business from a single source.

The extensibility of the work item forms and customizations as well as the backend API to query the data, et cetera, and manipulate the data programmatically are all very valuable aspects of the product.

The UI, the user experience, is challenging for newcomers. Once you get it, you get it, and it's not too bad. However, it takes some effort to learn how to work with the system. There's a moderate learning curve. I've used both Jira and Azure DevOps, and I would have that same feedback for both tools.

The biggest challenge has been that both Azure DevOps and Jira tend to pivot more towards software development and the industry is going more towards full end-to-end product development - hardware and software. These platforms could do a lot more to help support the mechanical, electrical, controls, robotics, and more of the hardware side of things.

I started using the solution in 2010. It's been about 12 years. 

I haven't had a problem with stability. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

When you surpass a terabyte of data from a work item standpoint, certainly there are some limitations in performance as the running is querying that large data set in the backend.

I've done multiple different deployments. Sometimes, the smaller, smaller deployments have been a handful of five people, and it might be three software devs, a test engineer, a hardware engineer, and a PM. 

I've also done larger deployments where it's 8,300 people. That was a mix of hardware, software, PMs, firmware engineers, front-end, full-stack devs, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, et cetera. 

In the deployment that was 8,300, it's actually still deployed there and growing. Another deployment I was a part of that was a medium deployment - 20 users - has since reduced more due to politics and going back to the front-end, ease of use. There are some folks that it was too high of friction to use it. You can scale it up or down to match your needs.

I don't deal with technical support in the traditional sense. I know the developers who've developed it, so I just go talk to them.

I've also used Jira.

I previously used SharePoint and Microsoft decided the direction of SharePoint to be less workflow-oriented and less list-oriented and more as a document store. As their roadmap moved away from work management, I've moved over into the TFS/Azure DevOps world.

I was a Microsoft employee. There was some natural tendency to just go with the Microsoft tool, however, it wasn't a hard, fast requirement when we just looked at the feature sets and stuff. 

I've been a developer on the backend. In terms of setting up the product, my answer would be highly complex. If I were just doing it for a core user, set of users, then I would say the setup was relatively frictionless. I would say the one point of ambiguity is for some newcomers if they don't understand the difference between CMMI templates versus Agile, versus Scrum, they'll find it complex. I've seen a lot of new users create dummy projects to then go in and see how each of those is configured from a template standpoint. Work could be done there to just reduce that level of friction.

In terms of deployment times, I've been on multiple different sides of levels of deployment. From the simple side, I've seen deployments take as little as a couple of minutes. If it's teams of five, for example, they go into the web app, they start up a new project, and boom they're in. They get all the requirements and user stories and all that stuff done. 

I've also been on the other side where it's been nine months with 22 people working full-time to configure and deploy this system across thousands and thousands of users. It just depends on the size.

It's hard to put a number on managing the plan of record. I haven't tried to calculate an ROI. It does what it's supposed to and it's more accessible than an Excel sheet.

The solution costs $5 or $10 per user, per month. It's a nominal fee.

I would actually prefer it in that they give you the first five users for free. That little bit of free users goes a long way, just from an initial trial and adoption standpoint. I would encourage them to keep doing things like that.

If you use the other services - if you use their build and compute engines and stuff like that, they charge some amount for computing and some of their extensions. These are not necessarily Microsoft's extensions. They are third-party ones and they'll charge. Depending on if the feature is core to the product, or it's an extension, it might or might not cost you something extra.

I've evaluated pretty much every ALM.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

I've used all the versions, starting back with Server 2005. Now I'm just using their online version.

In terms of advice I'd give to new users, I'd say it goes back to basic change management. Understand who your attractors and detractors are. Lay out the feature sets, ease of use, and things like that. That at least will help detractors become a neutral party as there are always going to be people that create friction within a deployment. Just have an effective change management plan. I've looked at over 12 different ALMs and they all have their pros and cons. It really just comes down to just picking one and going forward with it and learning it.

I would rate the product at an eight out of ten.