Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
BMC AMI DevX
Score 9.4 out of 10
N/A
BMC AMI DevX is an integrated software platform that provides mainframe development teams with modern Application Development and DevOps capabilities. The solution connects traditional mainframe environments with contemporary development practices through components for source code management, testing, debugging, and analytics.N/A
CircleCI
Score 9.5 out of 10
N/A
CircleCI is a software delivery engine from the company of the same name in San Francisco, that helps teams ship software faster, offering their platform for Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD). Ultimately, the solution helps to map every source of change for software teams, so they can accelerate innovation and growth.
$15
per month
Pricing
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Server
Contact Sales
Performance
starting at $15
per month
Scale
starting at $2000
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Considered Both Products
BMC AMI DevX
Chose BMC AMI DevX
BMC AMI DevX wins by 33 lengths!
Chose BMC AMI DevX
The names may have changed over the years, but anyone who has been around for a while will recognize them. For Software Configuration Management, I have used TSO/ISPF/SCLM, Panvalet, ChangeMan, Librarian, Endevor, and now Code Pipeline. All of them met the basic requirements. …
Chose BMC AMI DevX
Optim is more user friendly in how it operates, in my opinion. It's less obtuse to figure out how to extract and mask the data required compared to File-AID. Further, Optim is easier to gather related tables, by far. I do prefer using File-AID via the Topaz GUI much more than …
Chose BMC AMI DevX
we used to use Compuware Strobe extensively to monitor performance
CircleCI
Chose CircleCI
Based on the cost for feature set that we needed we went with CircleCI. There were also more people on our team that knew how to use CircleCI already compared to other products which made it a preferred choice for ramp up. Other products were not as robust and quick to …
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI is the only product we've used.
Chose CircleCI
We use CircleCI when we need a good, independent CI/CD provider in an existing workflow. That said, we've begun investing more heavily in GitHub actions as it's closer to where our code is stored. CircleCI is a feature of a workflow, and can be filled by many different service …
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI is a sass product which means you don't need to maintain your own servers. This can also be a negative as you are dependent on their service. This also means you can't ssh into a machine to see what went wrong like you can with Jenkins. However for most users this …
Chose CircleCI
Because the Travis CI features are not very good, it has a lot of problems with concurrency and the uptime of the on-cloud solution was the worst we have ever tried.
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI is still being developed and worked on continually while TravisCI is not.
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI seemed to have a quicker setup than other similar products, with a good integration with GitHub repos. Projects are quick and easy to set up within the UI, and workflows can then be created off the back of those fairly intuitively. Clever interpretation of commit …
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI is the company that is innovating compared to the other ones. I think it's a great piece of software compared to other open source options that don't have as much functionality and improved capability over time.
Chose CircleCI
While the UI on CircleCI is not my favorite, it's leagues better than Travis CI. I really like Heroku CI much better, but the functionality is much more limited there. If Heroku CI had the same functionality as CircleCI, I probably wouldn't use CircleCI.
Chose CircleCI
Jenkins and Teamcity both have additional features that maybe you require, but they are also a lot more work to get set up and working. There's a much longer learning curve to getting these configured for a simple build. They're not hosted, so you have to maintain the …
Chose CircleCI
CircleCI does a lot of what we need it to do; however, I believe Jenkins is a better Continuous Integration tool. Jenkins has more capabilities and integrations. In addition, Jenkins is a much more widely used tool, which means more developers are familiar with it and have …
Chose CircleCI
Not having to manage / deal with a Jenkins server is fantastic. I don't have much personally against Jenkins. I've set up and run a Jenkins server before. It's just complexity that doesn't really have much to do with the business beyond getting our software to our customers. My …
Chose CircleCI
Since CircleCI gave us its infrastructure we don't have to worry about servers, provisioning and maintenance. Also CircleCI provides us great features to increase speed of builds by adding more containers to the build. Jenkins is the best open source alternative but it requires …
Chose CircleCI
Jenkins is usually self-hosted, Travis CI's infrastructure is largely unreliable (lots of tests time out for no discernable reason), and Semaphore encourages you to configure your CI/CD from a web UI. We like CircleCI because its hosted, our tests run largely as expected on …
Chose CircleCI
It was our CTO who did the evaluation, not me, but as I recall other services weren't as parallelizable. We knew we wanted to run on many containers simultaneously for fast test results.
Chose CircleCI
For us it really came down to CricleCI being the fastest and simples tool to get started with. The GitHub integration is slick and seamless and the scripting config file allowed us to configure our entire build system, including tests, in less than a day. It's very light weight …
Chose CircleCI
Circle was the first CI with simple setup, great documentation, and tight integration with Github. Using Jenkins was too much maintenance and overhead, TeamCity was limited in how we could customize it and run concurrent builds, TravisCI was not available for private repos when …
Chose CircleCI
Travis has full YML configuration in areas where CircleCI is slightly lacking still, which is great, but CircleCI offers more features, settings, and potential performance.

Codeship is simpler to use, you can use it entirely from their UI without modifying your Git repository at …
Chose CircleCI
Travis CI is great for open source projects – it's completely free, but CircleCI offers some support for closed projects as well. CircleCI has cheaper pricing plans, and you are able to customize them as much as you want. At Travis CI you can select only a predefined amount of …
Chose CircleCI
The biggest downside to CircleCI is that it doesn't support parameterized builds, that is testing your code against language version X and Y, or framework version A and B. Beyond that, it is really a great product.
Chose CircleCI
I had used Travis CI in some of my open source projects. However, it was too expensive for us so I looked for an alternative that was in our budget. Scrutinizer is also very useful, but also out of our budget. When we get larger I could see myself using Scrutinizer for quality …
Chose CircleCI
I think these three tools are just as good as the other except that Travis CI supports mobile a lot better but price wise, CircleCI is the best that I have found and is supports the need for a startup. For a long while, CircleCI had Docker support before Codeship but now, …
Chose CircleCI
We looked at various others, but the clincher for us was really iOS build support and CircleCi was one of the few that had it.
Best Alternatives
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Small Businesses
GitHub
GitHub
Score 9.0 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
GitHub
GitHub
Score 9.0 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Perforce P4
Perforce P4
Score 7.7 out of 10
GitLab
GitLab
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Likelihood to Recommend
9.2
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
6.9
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
7.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
BMC AMI DevXCircleCI
Likelihood to Recommend
I love these tools! However, my company has not yet transitioned from SCLM to a modern repository, and this is causing most of our developers to remain within TSO for all their development. It's been a slow adoption up to this point, but we are moving toward more modernization this year and next, so with any luck, we'll see usage pick up. Success depends on the speed at which your management is willing to move.
Read full review
CircleCI is well suited if you, your developer, or team of developers have already worked with it in the past. They don't need to go through the learning curve of yet another Continuous Integration tool. Circle handles Continuous Integration workflows very well, including pretty complex workflows. With that said, Circle can get expensive if you need to run multiple containers in parallel and might not be as easy to setup as some alternatives, such as Jenkins.
Read full review
Pros
  • Code Pipeline: integration of MF and non-MF type of object (COBOL, Java, zosconnect...). Deployment of objects coming from inside and outside the mainframe in the same way.
  • Workbench for Eclipse: a must-have for working with Code Pipeline and the mainframe in the development context.
  • Workbench for VS Code: They started developing VSCode, and the plugin works very well. There are a lot of things to add, but it's still very good. Young developers like it!
Read full review
  • Full customization and scripting abilities. Using tools like bash scripts, SSH, and Node, running almost anything upon committing some code to GitHub becomes possible.
  • Integration with all of our favorite services. GitHub and Slack in particular are crucial to our business and CircleCI's integration is seamless and full-featured.
  • Great config file syntax. Many CI services require you to perform advanced configuration in a UI. This is fine at first (and CircleCI offers this for many options available), but when you start needing to manage a large number of projects, committing configuration changes to a Git repository is more consistent and maintainable than making the change many different times manually in a UI.
Read full review
Cons
  • Download source code plug-in on Azure DevOps to allow downloading prod version even if it's not in the assignment.
  • Publishing Test Results on Azure DevOps from Total Test plugin
  • Integration with DevEnterprise in Workbench and GenAI capabilities for enhance code analysis (Accross multiple programs/applications)
Read full review
  • CircleCI mostly getting built into both upstream platforms (Github/Gitlab) and downstream platforms (AWS, Azure, GCP), in which cases it's often a better fit or can be used as a part of existing tooling
  • UX can be confusing to navigate and see what's happening.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
CircleCI interface is awesome in that it is relatively modern and makes it clear exactly which parts of the engineering lifecycle you are in
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
It's pretty snappy, even with using workflows with multiple steps and different docker images. I've seen builds take a long time if it's really involved, but from what I can tell, it's still at least on par if not faster than other build tools.
Read full review
Support Rating
Support has been amazing compared to Optim. Further, new features are very regular with File-AID - I can't remember the last time Optim had a significant update. File-AID support is very receptive to feature requests and reported bugs, including sending out hotfixes quickly.
Read full review
I haven't personally used their support service, but I have heard from others that they are responsive. I've also seen only one or two downtimes in over a year of use and both were no more than an hour or two.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
The names may have changed over the years, but anyone who has been around for a while will recognize them. For Software Configuration Management, I have used TSO/ISPF/SCLM, Panvalet, ChangeMan, Librarian, Endevor, and now Code Pipeline. All of them met the basic requirements. All of them had their advantages and disadvantages. Code Pipeline, however, stands head and shoulders above the rest in simplicity, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and elegance.
Read full review
Jenkins and Teamcity both have additional features that maybe you require, but they are also a lot more work to get set up and working. There's a much longer learning curve to getting these configured for a simple build. They're not hosted, so you have to maintain the infrastructure and scale yourself. They're both good products if you require more than CircleCI, but if not, skip the extra headache and go with something simple like CircleCI.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • I can debug (expeditor) much faster and more efficiently. In fact, I was asked yesterday to run their job through Workbench Expeditor. I can also view data movement much better.
  • Code analysis lets me give a quicker explanation of what a program may do, as it provides a graphical interface showing processing and data movement.
Read full review
  • Saves us a lot of time and reduces potential mistakes by making our deployment and QA process completely automated
  • Builds docker images for us so we don't have to build them locally on our machines
  • Runs tests automatically on every commit, so we catch mistakes early
Read full review
ScreenShots

BMC AMI DevX Screenshots

Screenshot of BMC AMI DevX Workbench for VS CodeScreenshot of BMC AMI DevX Code Insights ft BMC AMI Assistant in Visual StudioScreenshot of BMC AMI DevX Code Insights ft Runtime VisualizerScreenshot of BMC AMI DevX Code PipelineScreenshot of BMC AMI zAdviser Enterprise