Compare Azure DevOps Server and Mercurial 
- Users report that Azure DevOps Server excels in deployment-ready staging with a score of 8.9, allowing teams to efficiently manage their release processes, while Mercurial, although effective, does not have a dedicated feature for staging, which can lead to more manual processes.
- Reviewers mention that Azure DevOps Server offers robust integration capabilities with a score of 8.6, making it easier to connect with various tools and services, whereas Mercurial, while it supports integrations, does not provide the same level of seamless connectivity, which can hinder workflow efficiency.
- G2 users highlight Azure DevOps Server's extensibility with a score of 8.5, allowing for custom plugins and extensions that enhance functionality, while Mercurial's extensibility is rated lower at 8.4, indicating fewer options for customization according to specific user needs.
- Users on G2 report that Azure DevOps Server shines in management processes and workflow with a score of 8.9, providing comprehensive tools for tracking and managing tasks, while Mercurial's management features, although solid, score lower at 8.7, suggesting less comprehensive workflow management capabilities.
- Reviewers mention that Azure DevOps Server's reporting features are rated at 8.7, offering detailed insights and analytics that help teams make informed decisions, whereas Mercurial's reporting capabilities, rated at 8.4, may not provide the same depth of analysis, which can impact project visibility.
- Users say that Azure DevOps Server's automation features are rated at 8.5, streamlining repetitive tasks and improving efficiency, while Mercurial's automation features, although useful, score lower at 8.3, indicating that users may need to invest more time in manual processes.
I love TFS. I love the way it tracks bugs, I love the way it manages and tracks deployments to different environments, and I love the way it manages test cases, test plans, requirements, and features, as well as tasks. Our company currently has it set up so...
Horrible search. Difficult to "quickly" find anything. In choosing this product as a business solution, you will find it difficult to get less technically inclined individuals to be able to manage tasks using this 1990's drill down interface. PBIs or...
I like how simple the commands are compared to git. It's a distributed version control software, so it gives you that power. When git is too confusing or overkill, mercurial is very nice. Mercurial also has measures in place that prevent you from shooting...
When I clone a repository, the whole repository gets cloned, only if I needed parts of it Takes too long to clone
I love TFS. I love the way it tracks bugs, I love the way it manages and tracks deployments to different environments, and I love the way it manages test cases, test plans, requirements, and features, as well as tasks. Our company currently has it set up so...
I like how simple the commands are compared to git. It's a distributed version control software, so it gives you that power. When git is too confusing or overkill, mercurial is very nice. Mercurial also has measures in place that prevent you from shooting...
Horrible search. Difficult to "quickly" find anything. In choosing this product as a business solution, you will find it difficult to get less technically inclined individuals to be able to manage tasks using this 1990's drill down interface. PBIs or...
When I clone a repository, the whole repository gets cloned, only if I needed parts of it Takes too long to clone
