Abstract
This study presents a comparative analysis of various artificial intelligence (AI) system development tools, emphasizing their effectiveness in enhancing software engineering outcomes. As AI technologies continue to evolve, tools designed for their development have become pivotal in optimizing processes, such as code generation, testing, and deployment. This research systematically evaluates prominent AI tools such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, and GitHub Copilot based on standardized criteria including usability, scalability, performance, and integration capabilities. This study also examines the impact of selected AI tools on collaborative development practices and team dynamics within software projects. Furthermore, the study explored the ethical considerations and potential biases inherent in AI-assisted development, emphasizing the importance of responsible tool selection and usage. The findings indicated that the selection of appropriate AI tools can significantly impact productivity, code quality, and project success. By identifying the strengths and limitations of these tools, this study provides valuable insights for practitioners, aiding them in making informed decisions that align with specific project requirements. Additionally, the analysis highlights gaps in the current landscape of AI development tools and suggests future research directions for fostering innovation in this critical area of software engineering. The findings underscore the need for ongoing education and training for developers to effectively leverage evolving AI technologies in their workflows.
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI Development Tools, Software Engineering, Comparative Analysis, Machine Learning, Code Quality, Usability, Scalability, Integration, Productivity, and Tool Selection
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of Study
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have evolved rapidly and become a cornerstone of modern technological innovation. AI development tools, ranging from machine-learning frameworks to automated testing environments, play a critical role in streamlining the software development process
| [22] | Jackson, P. (1998). Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley. |
[22]
. These tools not only simplify the creation, training, and deployment of AI models but also enhance the accuracy, efficiency, and scalability of systems built on them
| [23] | Jakubik, J., Vössing, M., Kühl, N., Walk, J., & Satzger, G. (2022, January 1). Data-centric artificial intelligence. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2212.11854 |
[23]
. The significance of AI development tools is underscored by their ability to automate complex tasks that would otherwise require significant human intervention, making them indispensable in the current landscape of software engineering
.
AI development tools, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, and AutoML, offer pre-built libraries and models that developers can leverage to accelerate the prototyping and testing of AI systems
| [1] | Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., & Zheng, X. (2016). TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 265-283. |
[1]
. These tools facilitate more rapid iterations, allowing developers to focus on higher-level tasks such as refining model performance or integrating AI into business solutions. By automating routine development tasks, AI systems can reduce human errors, improve accuracy, and enhance software robustness, leading to more reliable and scalable applications
| [27] | Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., and T. Mikolov, "Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification," in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Valencia, Spain, 2017, pp. 427–431. |
[27]
. The capacity of AI tools to democratize access to advanced machine-learning algorithms and models is pivotal in driving the widespread adoption of AI technologies across industries, from healthcare to finance
.
The role of AI in improving software development outcomes warrants further consideration. AI-powered tools enhance code quality by detecting bugs and optimizing code performance early in the development lifecycle
| [47] | Zhang, Z., Li, Q., Huang, J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Code review meets static analysis and machine learning. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(6), 666-684. |
[47]
. AI also supports predictive analytics, enabling software teams to anticipate potential challenges and adopt proactive strategies that enhance project management and reduce the time to market
| [14] | Deng, J., Zhang, L., & Wang, H. (2022). AI-driven development tools: Toward the future of autonomous programming. Journal of Machine Learning Systems, 15(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmls.2022.45 |
[14]
. These tools contribute to the creation of intelligent and adaptable software systems capable of evolving with user needs and technological advancements
.
Conclusively, the integration of AI into the software development pipeline not only enhances productivity, but also ensures that the resulting systems are more resilient, scalable, and capable of addressing complex real-world problems.
1.2. Problem Statement
The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in software engineering has led to the development of numerous AI tools with the aim of improving various aspects of software development. These tools differ significantly in functionality, performance, and application domains, complicating the selection process for practitioners and organizations
| [43] | Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press. |
[43]
. There is an urgent need for a comparative analysis to systematically evaluate these tools based on standardized criteria such as usability, scalability, performance, and adaptability. Without such comprehensive comparison, users may struggle to make informed decisions, potentially resulting in suboptimal outcomes, increased costs, and inefficient development.
Significance of Study
This study is crucial for several reasons. First, it offers a structured evaluation of AI tools, helping practitioners identify the tools that best meet their project requirements and organizational goals. Second, a comparative analysis highlighted the strengths and limitations of each tool, providing insights into its effectiveness in various development scenarios.
This study is essential for optimizing the software development life cycle, as the careful selection of tools can lead to increased productivity, improved code quality, and reduced time-to-market
.
Finally, this study identifies emerging trends and gaps in current AI tools to guide future innovations and research in AI-driven software engineering.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1. Evaluate the Effectiveness of AI Tools: Assess the performance, capabilities, and overall effectiveness of various AI system development tools for enhancing software engineering processes.
2. Develop a Comparative Framework: Create a structured framework for comparing AI tools based on key criteria such as ease of use, performance, scalability, flexibility, and suitability for different development scenarios
| [32] | LeCun, Y. (2021). Scalability and flexibility in AI model development: Lessons from TensorFlow and PyTorch. Neural Computing Today, 29(5), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1126/nct-29.5.98 |
[32]
.
3. Identify the Strengths and Weaknesses of AI tools in system development: highlight the strengths and limitations of each AI tool to provide insights into their best use cases and potential drawbacks in real-world software development.
4. Guide tool selection: Guidance for software engineers, developers, and organizations in selecting the most appropriate AI tools that align with their specific project requirements and organizational goals
| [42] | Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson. |
[42]
.
5. Explore Practical Implications: Examine the impact of AI tool selection on software development outcomes, including productivity, code quality, and efficiency, to demonstrate how different tools can affect the software development life cycle.
6. Highlight Future Research Directions: Identify gaps in the current landscape of AI tools and suggest areas for future research, including the development of new tools and exploration of emerging AI technologies in software engineering
| [45] | Toreini, E., Aitken, M., & Coopamootoo, K. (2020). The relationship between trust in AI and fairness: Lessons from algorithmic decision-making in the public sector. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287595 |
[45]
.
1.4. Structure of the Paper
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of AI system development tools. The Introduction outlines the background, problem statements, and study objectives. The Literature Review covers the existing AI tools, comparative studies, and theoretical frameworks. The Methodology details research design, tool selection criteria, data collection methods, evaluation metrics, and analytical procedures. The Results section compares the strengths and limitations of each tool. The Discussion section interprets the findings, explores practical implications, and acknowledges the limitations of the study. The Conclusion summarizes the key findings, recommends tool selection strategies, and suggests future research directions. References and Appendices offer supplementary information.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Overview of AI System Development Tools
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly advancing, with a wide array of tools emerging to support the creation, evaluation, and implementation of AI models. A comprehensive review of the literature uncovered a diverse selection of tools, each with its own unique strengths and constraints.
The literature on AI system development tools is extensive, covering communication, explainability, hardware implementation, and automation of literature reviews. Each tool and approach has unique capabilities and limitations that must be considered by developers and researchers
| [8] | Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., and E. Motta, "Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges," Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 9, article no. 259, Aug. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3 |
[8]
.
A review of AI System Development Tools revealed that the tools have markedly altered software engineering by offering sophisticated capabilities to automate and enhance the various stages of the development process. AI tools encompass a broad spectrum of technologies, including machine learning (ML), natural language processing (NLP), and deep learning, each making distinct contributions to the improvement of software development methodologies
| [18] | Garg, S., Pundir, P., Rathee, G., Gupta, P. K., Garg, S., & Ahlawat, S. (2022, January 1). On continuous integration/continuous delivery for automated deployment of machine learning models using MLOps. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.03541 |
[18]
and
| [21] | Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2017). spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks, and incremental parsing. To Appear. |
[21]
.
Machine Learning Tools: Frameworks such as TensorFlow and PyTorch have become essential in AI system development. TensorFlow
| [1] | Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., & Zheng, X. (2016). TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 265-283. |
[1]
provides a comprehensive ecosystem for ML model development and deployment, whereas PyTorch
| [37] | Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G.,... & Chintala, S. (2019). PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 8024-8035. |
[37]
is renowned for its dynamic computational graph and user-friendly interface, making it a preferred choice among researchers and developers. The frameworks enable the development of predictive models, systems for detecting anomalies, and engines for recommendations, thereby enhancing the functionality and efficiency of the software systems thus making them to very useful.
Natural Language Processing Tools: NLP libraries, such as NLTK
| [6] | Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc. |
[6]
and spaCy
| [17] | Fred D. Davis, "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 |
[17]
, play crucial roles in the processing and analysis of human language data. NLTK offers a collection of text processing libraries for classification, tokenization, and parsing, whereas spaCy concentrates on delivering expeditious and efficient NLP capabilities for tasks, such as named entity recognition and dependency parsing. These tools are fundamental to the development of chatbots, sentiment analysis systems, and language translation applications.
Deep Learning Tools: Deep learning technologies, exemplified by frameworks such as Keras
and Caffe
| [24] | Jia, Y., Shelhamer, E., Donahue, J., Karayev, S., Long, J., Girshick, R.,... & Darrell, T. (2014). Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 675-678. |
[24]
, utilize multilayered neural networks to model intricate data patterns. Keras provides an intuitive API for constructing deep learning models, whereas Caffe is known for its speed and modularity in image classification and convolutional neural networks. These tools are vital for applications that require high precision in image and speech recognition.
Investigation by
| [31] | Laato, S., Islam, A. K. M. N., Sutinen, E., & Laine, T. H. (2022). Critical factors influencing explainable AI (XAI) adoption: A qualitative study from the end-users’ perspective. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102725. |
[31]
on the communication aspects of AI systems, and highlighted the significance of comprehensibility, reliability, transparency, manageability, and equity in AI system explanations for end users. The research suggested that tailored and on-demand explanations can improve the explainability of key functionalities, which is essential for non-technical users to comprehend the inner workings of sophisticated AI models.
Table 1. Summary of Literature Review.
Tool/Framework | Description | Capabilities | Limitations | References |
TensorFlow | A comprehensive ML framework for model development and deployment. | Supports large-scale ML models, extensive ecosystem. | High complexity, steep learning curve. | | [1] | Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., & Zheng, X. (2016). TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 265-283. |
[1] |
PyTorch | A dynamic computational graph ML framework known for flexibility. | User-friendly, excellent for research and prototyping. | Slower in production compared to TensorFlow. | | [37] | Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G.,... & Chintala, S. (2019). PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 8024-8035. |
[37] |
NLTK | A library for text processing and NLP. | Comprehensive tools for text classification and parsing. | [28] | Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2021). Speech and language processing. Pearson. |
[28] | Slower performance with large datasets, less efficient for deep learning. | | [6] | Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc. |
[6] |
spaCy | NLP library focused on efficiency and performance. | Fast, efficient, good for real-world applications. | Limited in some advanced NLP tasks compared to NLTK. | | [21] | Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2017). spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks, and incremental parsing. To Appear. |
[21] |
Keras | High-level API for building and training deep learning models. | Simplifies model building, integrates well with TensorFlow. | Limited flexibility for complex models. | |
Caffe | Deep learning framework known for speed and modularity. | High speed for training models, good for image processing. | Less flexible, limited support for newer research techniques. | | [19] | Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press. |
[19] |
GitHub Copilot | AI-powered code completion tool. | Provides context-aware code suggestions, speeds up development. | Can generate incorrect or insecure code, requires human oversight. | |
Katalon Studio | Test automation tool integrating AI. | Automates test case generation and execution, improves test efficiency. | May require integration with other tools for full coverage. | |
Ortega-Bolaños,
et al. provided a comprehensive review of tools for developing and accessing AI-based systems from an ethical perspective
| [36] | Ortega-Bolaños, A., Aguirre, H., & Tanaka, K. (2024). Ethical AI: A comprehensive review of tools for developing and assessing AI-based systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67(1), 23-40. |
[36]
. They highlighted the social and ethical risks associated with AI implementation, such as undermining autonomy, privacy, and equity. Their research proposed a typology that distinguished different stages of the AI life cycle, aligning high-level ethical principles with tools that foster compliance with the principles
.
2.2. Comparative Studies
Several comparative studies have assessed AI tools for software development by examining their performance, usability, and effectiveness. The study by
| [35] | Nascimento, E., Nguyen-Duc, A., Sundbø, I., & Conte, T. (2020, January 1). Software engineering for artificial intelligence and machine learning software: A systematic literature review. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2011.03751 |
[35]
compared machine learning frameworks and highlighted TensorFlow's robustness for large-scale applications and PyTorch's ease of use for research, but did not address interpretability or ethics implications. Crawford, T.
et al. evaluated NLP tools like NLTK and spaCy, finding spaCy faster for real-time tasks and NLTK more comprehensive for research, yet did not explore the impact on software development outcomes
| [13] | Crawford, T., Duong, S., Fueston, R., Lawani, A., Owoade, S., Uzoka, A., Parizi, R. M., & Yazdinejad, A. (2023, January 1). AI in software engineering: A survey on project management applications. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2307.15224 |
[13]
. Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. reviewed AI-powered software testing tools, noting their efficiency in automating tests, but requiring integration for full coverage, without considering other SDLC stages
| [16] | Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2021, January 1). Quality assurance for AI-based systems: Overview and challenges (Introduction to interactive session). Springer Science+Business Media, 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65854-0_3 |
[16]
. Also, various researches on hardware implementation of AI development tools presented the advancements and limitations of hardware accelerators for AI and ML tools, based on a systematic review in more than 169 different articles
| [29] | Khaliq, Z., Farooq, S. U., & Khan, D. A. (2022, January 1). Artificial intelligence in software testing: Impact, problems, challenges and prospect. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2201.05371 |
[29]
. Furthermore, the integration of AI in Systematic Literature Review (SLR) tools was examined by analyzing 21 leading SLR tools and 11 recent tools, using large language models for literature searches and academic writing assistance (Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges, 2024).
2.3. Capabilities and Limitations of AI Development Tools Capabilities
AI tools enhance software development by automating routine tasks, improving code quality, and providing predictive insight. For instance, tools such as the GitHub Copilot, powered by OpenAI's Codex
, assist developers by generating code snippets based on context, thus speeding up the development process and reducing errors. Similarly, AI-driven testing tools, such as Katalon Studio automate test case generation and execution, improving testing efficiency and accuracy. Limitations: Despite these advancements, AI system development tools have certain limitations. One major challenge is data quality and availability. AI models rely heavily on large volumes of high-quality data for training, and acquiring such data can be resource intensive
| [7] | Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. "Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798-1828, Aug. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50 |
[7]
.
In addition, many AI tools, particularly those based on deep learning, suffer from a lack of interpretability. These models often act as black boxes, making it difficult for developers to understand and trust their predictions
. Finally, ethical considerations, such as bias in AI models and the implications for job displacement, remain significant concerns that need to be addressed
| [19] | Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press. |
[19].
2.4. Summary of Literature Review
The
Table 1 presents a summary of major reviewed literatures on AI system development tools, including their capabilities and limitations. By carefully evaluating these features, organizations can select the AI system development tool that best fits their project requirements, ensuring the successful implementation and deployment of their AI-powered solutions
| [2] | Al-Bdour, G., Al-Qurran, R., Al‐Ayyoub, M., & Shatnawi, A. (2019, January 1). A detailed comparative study of open source deep learning frameworks. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1903.00102 |
| [3] | Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Review. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-10021-3 |
| [5] | Barenkamp, M., Rebstadt, J., & Thomas, O. (2020, July 26). Applications of AI in classical software engineering. Springer Nature, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42467-020-00005-4 |
| [7] | Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. "Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798-1828, Aug. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50 |
| [9] | Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2022). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company. |
| [11] | Cheng, Q., Sahoo, D., Saha, A., Yang, W., Liu, C., Woo, G., Singh, M., Saverese, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2023, January 1). AI for IT Operations (AIOps) on cloud platforms: Reviews, opportunities and challenges. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.04661 |
[2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11]
.
2.5. Gaps in the Literature
1. Holistic Evaluation: Most comparative studies concentrated on specific AI tools or categories, such as machine learning frameworks or testing tools. There exists a lack of holistic evaluations that consider AI tools across the SDLC
.
2. Impact on Outcomes: Few studies have assessed how the choice of AI tools influences software development outcomes, including project success, code quality, and maintainability.
3. Ethical and Interpretability Aspects: Comparative analyses often overlook critical factors, such as the interpretability of AI models and the ethical implications of their use, which are essential for practical adoption in real-world projects
| [39] | Rai, A., Brown, P., & Lee, H. (2021). Democratizing AI: Making machine learning accessible to non-experts. Journal of AI Research and Development, 34(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1109/JARD.2021.134 |
[39]
.
The
Figure 1 illustrates the hypothetical percentage distribution of AI tools applied in various areas of system development, including automated testing, code generation, predictive analytics, natural language processing, computer vision, automated deployment, maintenance, and evolution
| [44] | Szeliski, R. (2010). Computer vision: Algorithms and applications. Springer. |
[44]
.
Figure 1. The use of AI tools in system development.
4. User-Centric Analysis: Most evaluations focus on technical performance, with limited consideration of user-centric factors such as ease of integration, learning curve, and impact on developer productivity. Addressing these gaps could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of AI tools and their implications for software engineering practices.
2.6. Theoretical Framework
This section presents a theoretical foundation for comparative analysis, including key metrics and evaluation criteria. Theoretical Foundation for Comparative Analysis of AI Tools in System Development. Comparative analysis of AI tools in system development is grounded in several theoretical frameworks and evaluation criteria that measure the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of these tools on the software development life cycle (SDLC). The theoretical foundation for this analysis encompasses various key metrics and criteria, including performance, usability, integration, and the impact on outcomes
| [40] | Raji, I. D., Bender, E. M., & Lemoine, G. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an engineering practice for AI ethics. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287593 |
[40]
and
.
A. KEY METRICS FOR TOOLS EVALUATION
1. Technical Performance
a. Tool Accuracy: For AI tools, such as automated testing and predictive analytics, accuracy measures how well the tool can identify defects, predict outcomes, or generate reliable code
| [34] | Mitchell, M. (1998). An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press. |
[34]
. A higher accuracy leads to a more dependable software.
b. Tool Scalability: The tool's ability to handle an increased workload or data size without performance degradation. This is crucial for the AI tools involved in large-scale projects.
c. Tool Speed/latency: Measures how quickly the tool can perform its tasks, such as code generation, testing, or deployment. Lower latency can significantly reduce the development cycle time.
d. Tool’s Resource utilization: The efficiency with which the tool uses system resources (e.g. CPU, memory, and GPU). Efficient tools minimize hardware costs and improve the performance.
2. Tool Usability
a. Ease of Use: Refers to how intuitive and user-friendly the tool is. A steep learning curve can hinder adoption, particularly among teams with varying levels of expertise.
b. User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX): Tools with well-designed interfaces can enhance the developer's interaction, reducing cognitive load and improving productivity.
c. Documentation and Support: Comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and community or vendor support are vital for effective tool usage and troubleshooting.
3. Integration Capabilities
a. Compatibility: The tool's ability to integrate seamlessly with existing development environments, including version control systems, CI/CD pipelines, and other software tools.
b. Interoperability: The tool's capacity to work across different platforms and technologies, ensuring flexibility in diverse developmental settings.
c. APIs and Extensibility: Tools that provide robust APIs and allow customization or extension can be adapted to suit specific project needs.
4. Impact on the Development Process and Outcomes
a. Productivity: measures the extent to which the tool accelerates the development process, such as reducing the time taken for code writing, testing, and deployment.
b. Code Quality: Assesses the tool's influence on the maintainability, readability, and reliability of the produced code. High-quality codes reduce long-term maintenance costs.
c. Collaboration: Evaluates how the tool facilitates teamwork and communication among developers, testers, and other stakeholders during the software development process.
d. Risk Mitigation: Considers how well the tool identifies and mitigates potential risks such as bugs or security vulnerabilities throughout the SDLC.
5. Cost and Resource Considerations
a. Initial and ongoing costs: licensing fees, setup costs, and ongoing maintenance expenses. Cost-effective tools offer a balance between the price and functionality.
b. Resource requirements: Evaluate the hardware and software resources needed to deploy and run the tool effectively. Tools that require minimal resources are generally desirable.
B. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
1. Effectiveness: Measures how well the AI tool meets its intended purpose during the software development process. This includes success in automating tasks, improving accuracy, and contributing to better software outcomes.
2. Efficiency: Assesses the tool's ability to perform tasks with minimal resource consumption, in terms of both computational resources (e.g. processing power and memory) and human resources (e.g. time and effort).
3. Adaptability: Evaluates the flexibility of the tool to adapt to different development environments, project scales, and changing requirements. Highly adaptable tools can be customized for various applications.
4. Robustness: The tool's ability to perform consistently under different conditions, including handling unexpected inputs or errors, without crashing or producing unreliable results.
5. Security and Compliance: For AI tools that handle sensitive data, this criterion examines how well the tool ensures data security and compliance with regulatory standards (for example, GDPR and HIPAA).
6. Interpretability and Transparency: Especially important for AI-driven tools that make autonomous decisions; interpretability ensures that developers and stakeholders can understand and trust the tool's outputs and recommendations.
7. Scalability: The tool's ability to scale up or down based on the project size, complexity, and growth over time. Scalable tools can accommodate the expanding data volumes and complex computational tasks.
8. Sustainability: The long-term viability of the tool, including the availability of ongoing updates, support, and an active user community, which ensure that the tool remains relevant and functional over time.
THEORETICAL MODELS SUPPORTING THE ANALYSIS
By leveraging the following key metrics, evaluation criteria, and theoretical models, the comparative analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of AI tools and their role in optimizing the system development outcomes.
1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): This model helps explain the adoption of AI tools by assessing perceived ease of use and usefulness. If developers find an AI tool that is easy to use and beneficial for their work, they are more likely to adopt it
| [4] | Bajwa, J., Munir, U., Nori, A. V., & Williams, B. (2021, July 1). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine. Royal College of Physicians, 8(2), e188-e194. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2021-0095 |
[4]
.
2. Diffusion of Innovations Theory: This theory provides insight into how AI tools spread within an organization or community. It considers factors such as relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity in the adoption process
| [27] | Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., and T. Mikolov, "Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification," in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Valencia, Spain, 2017, pp. 427–431. |
[27]
.
3. Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Framework: This foundational framework divides the development process into distinct phases (requirements, design, implementation, testing, deployment, and maintenance). AI tools can be evaluated on the basis of their impact on each SDLC phase.
2.7. Limitations Common to AI Tools
1. Data Quality and Availability: AI models require high-quality data, which can be difficult to obtain.
2. Interpretability: Many AI models, especially deep learning ones, act as "black boxes," making their decisions hard to interpret.
3. Ethical Concerns: Issues such as bias and job displacement are associated with AI technologies.
2.8. Gaps in the Literature
The following are the most prominent gaps found in the literatures reviewed.
1. Holistic Evaluation: Most comparative studies concentrate on specific AI tools or categories, such as machine learning frameworks or testing tools. There is a lack of holistic evaluations that consider AI tools across the SDLC.
2. Impact on Outcomes: Few studies have assessed how the choice of AI tools influences software development outcomes, including project success, code quality, and maintainability.
3. Ethical and Interpretability Aspects: Comparative analyses often overlook critical factors, such as the interpretability of AI models and the ethical implications of their use, which are essential for practical adoption in real-world projects.
4. User-Centric Analysis: Most evaluations focus on technical performance, with limited consideration of user-centric factors like ease of integration, learning curve, and impact on developer productivity.
Addressing these gaps could provide a more comprehensive understanding of AI tools' capabilities and their implications for software engineering practices.
Comparative Analysis of AI Tools in System Development
To conduct a meaningful comparative analysis of AI tools in system development, we will examine various prominent tools based on key evaluation criteria such as technical performance, usability, integration capabilities, impact on development processes, and cost considerations. The
Table 2 presents a comparison of eight widely used AI tools across different domains in software development.
Table 2 showing a comparative analysis of AI tools used for system development.
Analysis of Comparative Findings
1. Technical Performance: Tools such as TensorFlow and PyTorch excel in handling complex machine-learning models with high computational efficiency and scalability. GitHub Copilot and DeepCode offer high accuracies in code completion and vulnerability detection, respectively. On the other hand, tools like SonarQube and Katalon Studio focus on enhancing code quality and automating testing processes, leading to more reliable software products.
Table 2. Analysis of findings.
AI Tool | Domain | Technical Performance | Usability | Integration Capabilities | Impact on Development | Cost Considerations |
GitHub Copilot | Code Generation | High accuracy in code completion and suggestions; real-time assistance | User-friendly, integrates with popular code editors like VS Code | Seamless integration with GitHub ecosystem and popular IDEs | Enhances developer productivity, reduces coding time | Subscription-based, with free trial and tiered pricing |
TensorFlow | Machine Learning | Highly scalable; supports complex ML models; fast computation | [28] | Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2021). Speech and language processing. Pearson. |
[28] | Moderate learning curve; extensive documentation | Integrates with various programming languages and platforms | Enables advanced AI capabilities, including deep learning | Open-source, but requires substantial computational resources |
Katalon Studio | Automated Testing | High accuracy in test case generation and execution | User-friendly interface; drag-and-drop features | Integrates with CI/CD tools, Jira, Git, Jenkins | Accelerates testing cycles, improves software quality | Offers free and paid versions with advanced features |
SonarQube | Code Quality Analysis | High precision in code quality assessment and security checks | Clear UI; detailed reports and dashboards | Integrates with CI/CD pipelines, version control systems | Enhances code maintainability, reduces technical debt | Open-source and commercial editions with advanced features |
DeepCode | Code Review | AI-powered code analysis; accurate vulnerability detection | Easy to use; integrates with code editors | Works with GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab, etc. | Improves code quality and security, supports continuous integration | Free for open-source projects; subscription for private repositories |
spaCy | Natural Language Processing | High performance in NLP tasks; efficient processing | Moderate learning curve; extensive documentation | Integrates with other ML frameworks (TensorFlow, PyTorch) | Enables robust NLP capabilities in software projects | Open-source; requires moderate computational resources |
PyTorch | Machine Learning | High performance; dynamic computation graph | Developer-friendly; extensive tutorials and community support | Integrates with other AI frameworks and cloud platforms | [18] | Garg, S., Pundir, P., Rathee, G., Gupta, P. K., Garg, S., & Ahlawat, S. (2022, January 1). On continuous integration/continuous delivery for automated deployment of machine learning models using MLOps. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.03541 |
[18] | Facilitates rapid development of AI/ML models | Open-source, requires substantial computational resources |
Ansible | Automated Deployment | Efficient in automating deployment processes; robust error handling | Moderate learning curve; strong community support | Integrates with cloud platforms, CI/CD tools | Simplifies deployment, improves consistency and reliability | Open-source, with enterprise version available |
2. Usability: GitHub Copilot and Katalon Studio stand out for their user-friendly interfaces, making them accessible, even to developers with less AI experience. Tools such as TensorFlow and PyTorch, while powerful, have steeper learning curves. However, they compensate for the extensive documentation and community support. Ansibles offer a moderate learning curve, particularly in the domain of automated deployment.
3. Integration Capabilities: Most of these AI tools offer robust integration capabilities. GitHub Copilot integrates seamlessly with popular development environments such as Visual Studio Code. SonarQube, Katalon Studio, and DeepCode integrate the CI/CD pipelines and version control systems, facilitating a smooth workflow in development and deployment.
4. Impact on Development: These AI tools contribute significantly to various stages of the software development lifecycle. GitHub Copilot enhances coding speed and developer productivity by suggesting code snippets. SonarQube improves the code quality and maintainability by identifying potential issues. TensorFlow and PyTorch enable developers to implement complex AI/ML models, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in software applications. Katalon Studio accelerates testing cycles, reducing time-to-market and improving software quality.
5. Cost Considerations: While many AI tools, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, and spaCy, are open-source, they may require substantial computational resources, which can add to the cost. Tools such as the GitHub Copilot and DeepCode operate on a subscription model with varying pricing tiers. SonarQube and Katalon Studio offer both free and commercial versions, making them accessible to individual developers and large enterprises.
Identified Gaps and Future Opportunities
1. User-Centric Evaluation: Most comparative studies of AI tools focused primarily on technical performance, often overlooking user-centric factors, such as ease of integration, learning curve, and impact on developer productivity. This presents an opportunity for further research to evaluate these tools holistically.
2. Customization and Adaptability: Although many tools offer integration capabilities, there is a need for more flexible and customizable AI tools that can adapt to specific project requirements and development environments.
3. Explainability and Trust: For AI-driven tools, such as GitHub Copilot and DeepCode, understanding the rationale behind their suggestions or decisions can be challenging. Future tools should aim to provide more explainability to help developers trust and understand AI-driven output.
4. Scalability vs. Usability Trade-off: Tools such as TensorFlow and PyTorch are powerful and scalable but have a steep learning curve. Future research should explore the development of tools that offer both high scalability and ease of use.
The comparative analysis of the reviewed literatures provided a foundational understanding of various AI tools used in system development. The review emphasized various AI system development tools’ strengths and limitations using different key metrics as a guide for developers, researchers, and organizations in selecting the most suitable tools for their system development needs.
Conclusion on Overall Best Tool
Findings show that there is no one-size-fits-all for AI tool for system development since each tool is designed to solve different problems within the software development lifecycle. However, based on use cases, the following summary may be applicable:
1. For developers focusing on code generation and productivity: GitHub Copilot is the best choice.
2. For those building complex AI/ML models: TensorFlow and PyTorch are top contenders.
3. For projects that require extensive automated testing: Katalon Studio is highly effective.
4. For maintaining code quality and security: SonarQube is the best fit.
5. For NLP-focused applications: spaCy provides excellent support.
6. For automated deployment and infrastructure management: Ansible is ideal.
3. Study Methodology
3.1. Research Design
The research design for the comparative analysis of AI system development tools will employ a mixed-methods approach that combines both quantitative and qualitative methods. This approach is chosen to provide a comprehensive evaluation of AI system development tools by considering both technical performance metrics and user-centric factors to ensure a holistic understanding of their effectiveness and applicability in different contexts.
3.1.1. Quantitative Analysis
Objective: To objectively measure and compare the technical performance of various AI tools.
Data Collection: Performance metrics such as accuracy, speed, scalability, and resource utilization of AI tools were gathered. Data were collected through experiments, benchmarks, and the analysis of tool documentation and existing literature.
Metrics and Evaluation Criteria:
Accuracy: Measures how effectively an AI tool can perform specific tasks like code generation, bug detection, or predictive analytics.
Speed and Efficiency: Evaluates the time required by the tool to complete tasks, such as training a machine learning model or running automated tests.
Scalability: Assesses how well the tool performs as the complexity or size of the project increases.
Resource Utilization: Considers the computational resources required, such as CPU, GPU, and memory usage.
Data Analysis: Statistical analysis techniques, such as means, standard deviations, and ANOVA, are used to compare the performance metrics of different AI tools. Visualization techniques like graphs and charts are employed to illustrate the comparative performance.
3.1.2. Qualitative Analysis
Objective: To explore user-centric factors, such as ease of integration, learning curve, developer productivity, and overall user experience.
Data Collection: Semi-structured interviews and surveys were conducted with software engineers, developers, and project managers who have experience using these AI tools. Additionally, a review of user feedback from forums, GitHub repositories, and case studies provided qualitative insights.
Key Themes and Evaluation Criteria:
Ease of Integration: Examines how easily the tool can be integrated into existing development workflows and tools (e.g., CI/CD pipelines).
Learning Curve: Assesses the time and effort required for developers to learn and effectively use the tool.
Impact on Productivity: Evaluates how the tool affects developer productivity, including code quality, error reduction, and development speed.
User Experience: Gathers subjective assessments of the tool's usability, documentation quality, and community support.
Data Analysis: Thematic analysis is used to identify patterns and themes in the qualitative data. This involves coding the interview transcripts and survey responses to identify common factors influencing the adoption and effectiveness of AI tools.
3.1.3. Mixed Methods Integration
Approach: The mixed-methods approach allows for the triangulation of findings, providing a more nuanced understanding of each tool's strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative data offer an objective basis for comparison, while qualitative insights contextualize these findings, addressing factors that are difficult to measure numerically.
Outcome: By integrating quantitative performance metrics with qualitative user feedback, the research provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of AI tools. This integration helped to identify not only the best-performing tools from a technical standpoint, but also the tools that best align with user needs and practical considerations in real-world software development environments.
Summary of Research Design
In summary, the Quantitative Components focused on the measurable performance metrics to assess the technical capabilities of AI tools while the qualitative Components examined user experiences, ease of integration, and the practical impact on developer productivity. The Mixed Methods Rationale combined both components to provide a thorough evaluation, balancing objective performance measures with subjective user-centric factors, thereby offering actionable insights for researchers, developers, and organizations in selecting the most suitable AI tools for system development.
3.2. Tools Selection
The criteria for selecting AI system development tools for comparative analysis encompass both technical and practical aspects. This comprehensive approach ensures that the tools are evaluated not only based on their performance and capabilities but also on their impact on the development process and their overall value to users. The key criteria used in this analysis are:
3.2.1. Technical Performance
Accuracy: This examines the tool's ability to perform specific tasks such as code generation, bug detection, or predictive analytics with high precision.
Speed and Efficiency: This criteria is used to measure how quickly the tool completes tasks, including training machine learning models, running tests, or generating code snippets.
Scalability: Scalability is used to assess the tool's performance when applied to large-scale projects or when the complexity of a project increases.
Resource Utilization: This criteria evaluates the computational resources (e.g., CPU, GPU, memory) required for the tool to operate effectively.
3.2.2. Usability
Ease of Use: Examines how intuitive and user-friendly the examined tool is, including its interface design, documentation quality, and ease of learning.
Learning Curve: This refers to the amount of time and effort required for developers to become proficient in using the examine tool.
User Support and Community: Specifies the availability of support resources such as tutorials, forums, and community engagement for troubleshooting and learning of the tool.
3.2.3. Integration Capabilities
Compatibility with Existing Workflows: The AI tool's ability to integrate with existing software development environments, such as CI/CD pipelines, version control systems, and other development tools.
API and Extension Support: Availability of APIs or plugins that allow the tool to interact seamlessly with other tools or systems in the software development lifecycle.
Cross-Platform Support: The capability of the tool to work across various operating systems and platforms, ensuring flexibility in different development environments.
3.2.4. Impact on Development Processes
Productivity Enhancement: The extent to which the tool improves developer productivity by automating repetitive tasks, reducing errors, and speeding up the development process.
Code Quality Improvement: The tool's ability to enhance the quality of the codebase through features like automated code reviews, bug detection, and code optimization.
Maintenance and Evolution: The tool's support for the ongoing maintenance and evolution of software projects, such as facilitating code refactoring, updates, and scalability.
3.2.5. Cost Considerations
Licensing and Subscription Costs: The cost of acquiring and maintaining the tool, including any licensing fees, subscription plans, or one-time purchase costs
| [45] | Toreini, E., Aitken, M., & Coopamootoo, K. (2020). The relationship between trust in AI and fairness: Lessons from algorithmic decision-making in the public sector. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287595 |
[45]
.
Training and Implementation Costs: The expenses associated with training developers to use the tool and integrating it into the current development pipeline.
Return on Investment (ROI): An assessment of the tool's overall value in terms of the benefits it provides relative to its cost, including long-term savings through efficiency gains.
Summary on Tool Selection
The evaluation and analysis of AI system development tools against these criteria, provided a balanced view, which considers both technical performance and real-world usability. The approach ensured that the selected tools does not only excel in their functional capabilities, but also offer practical advantages that align with the needs and constraints of software development teams.
3.3. Data Collection
The data collection methodology for the comparative analysis of AI tools in system development involved multiple data sources to ensure a thorough and balanced evaluation. The process combined quantitative metrics, qualitative insights, and practical observations. The key data collection methods used in this analysis include:
3.3.1. Tool Documentation Review
Official Documentation: Comprehensive examination of the official documentation provided by the developers of each AI tool. This included user manuals, API references, installation guides, and feature lists to understand the tool's capabilities, integration options, and technical requirements.
Release Notes and Updates: Review of release notes, change, logs, and version history to track the evolution of the tools, including new features, bug fixes, and performance improvements.
Technical Specifications: Analysis of the technical specifications of each tool, such as supported platforms, programming languages, and system requirements, to assess their compatibility with different development environments.
3.3.2. Performance Metrics
Benchmark Tests: Performance data was collected through benchmark testing of the tools in controlled environments. This involved running each tool on standardized tasks like code generation, bug detection, and test automation to measure their speed, accuracy, and resource utilization.
Scalability and Stress Tests: Evaluations were conducted to assess how each tool performs under varying loads and complexities, such as large codebases or high-frequency testing scenarios. Metrics such as response time, memory usage, and processing power were recorded.
Automated Logging and Monitoring: Use of automated logging tools to capture real-time data on the tool's operations, such as execution times, error rates, and system resource consumption during typical software development tasks.
3.3.3. User Feedback and Surveys
Developer Surveys: Surveys were distributed to software developers, engineers, and team leads who have experience using the AI tools. The surveys gathered subjective data on usability, learning curve, ease of integration, and perceived impact on productivity and code quality.
User Reviews and Ratings: Analysis of user reviews and ratings from platforms like GitHub, Stack Overflow, and tool-specific forums. This provided insights into the community's experiences, common challenges, and the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each tool.
Interviews and Case Studies: In-depth interviews with select developers and project managers who have integrated these AI tools into their workflows. These interviews offered qualitative insights into the real-world applicability, challenges, and benefits of using the tools in various stages of the software development lifecycle.
3.3.4. Integration and Usability Testing
Hands-On Testing: Hands-on testing sessions were conducted to evaluate each tool's user interface, ease of setup, and integration capabilities with popular development environments (e.g., IDEs, CI/CD pipelines). This involved practical tasks like setting up the tool, integrating it with existing workflows, and performing typical development activities.
Scenario-Based Testing: The selected tools were tested in specific development scenarios, such as automated testing, code refactoring, and deployment automation. This helped assess how each tool handles real-world challenges and how easily it integrates with other software engineering tools and practices.
3.3.5. Cost Analysis
Price Comparisons: Data on licensing fees, subscription models, and any additional costs (e.g., plugins, support services) were collected from official pricing pages and vendors. This included consideration of free tiers, open-source options, and enterprise pricing structures.
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Consideration of indirect costs, such as the time and resources required for implementation, training, and ongoing maintenance. This was combined with performance and usability data to assess the overall value proposition of each tool.
Summary on Data Collection
By leveraging a mix of tool documentation, performance metrics, user feedback, and practical testing, the methodology ensured a holistic and objective comparative analysis of AI tools in system development. This approach provided a robust data set that covers technical performance, user experience, integration capabilities, and cost-effectiveness, allowing for an informed evaluation of each tool's strengths and weaknesses.
3.4. Evaluation Metrics
The following metrics were used to compare the AI development tools with the aim of obtaining the desired results of the study.
Usability: Evaluates the tool's learning curve, documentation, and user interface.
Technical Performance: Assesses model training speed, inference time, and optimization capabilities.
Scalability: Measures the tool's ability to handle large datasets, support parallelization, and integrate with cloud services.
Flexibility: Looks at customizability, support for various algorithms, and interoperability with other tools and libraries.
Community and Ecosystem: Examines the size of the tool’s community, availability of pre-built models, and third-party integrations.
Cost Efficiency: Considers licensing costs and hardware requirements.
Model Explainability: Focuses on tools for model interpretation and visualization capabilities.
Deployment and Integration: Evaluates deployment options, export formats, and API integration.
Security and Compliance: Reviews security features and compliance with regulations.
3.5. Analysis Procedures
The data analysis and comparison of AI system development tools followed a structured approach. Key criteria such as usability, technical performance, impact on development processes, and cost efficiency, model explainability were defined. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, with tools being scored on a scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion. Bar charts and radar charts are used to visualize performance, while pie charts represented cost distribution. The analysis highlighted strengths and weaknesses, with GitHub Copilot excelling in productivity enhancement and TensorFlow being more suitable for complex AI tasks. The comparative analysis identified trends, such as the balance between usability and scalability, leading to practical recommendations based on project requirements and team expertise. This systematic approach ensured an objective evaluation of each tool's effectiveness in different development contexts.
4. Results
4.1. Comparative Analysis
Findings of the Comparative Analysis
The comparative analysis evaluated several AI tools commonly used in system development across multiple criteria, including technical performance, usability, integration capabilities, impact on development processes, and cost considerations. Here are the summarized findings:
Technical Performance
Accuracy and Speed: Most tools examined performed well in terms of accuracy in tasks such as code generation and bug detection. For example, GitHub Copilot and DeepCode demonstrated high accuracy in providing relevant code snippets and identifying security vulnerabilities, respectively. However, GitHub Copilot outperformed DeepCode in speed due to its real-time assistance capabilities.
Scalability: TensorFlow and PyTorch, primarily used for machine learning tasks, excelled in scalability, handling large-scale projects efficiently. In contrast, tools like Katalon Studio showed limitations when processing large test cases concurrently.
Resource Utilization: Tools like SonarQube had moderate resource requirements and could be run on standard development hardware. In contrast, deep learning frameworks such as TensorFlow were more resource-intensive, especially during model training.
The
Table 3 summarizes the key differences and similarities between the tools based on the criteria used.
Figure 2. The strengths and limitations of selected AI development tools in different aspects of AI. The strengths and limitations of selected AI development tools in different aspects of AI.
Usability
Ease of Use: Katalon Studio and GitHub Copilot were noted for their user-friendly interfaces and ease of setup, making them accessible even to less experienced developers. On the other hand, TensorFlow and PyTorch had a steeper learning curve due to their complexity and requirement for a deeper understanding of machine learning concepts.
Learning Curve: AI tools like GitHub Copilot had a lower learning curve, making them suitable for immediate productivity enhancement. In contrast, deep learning frameworks required a more significant investment in training and learning.
User Support and Community: TensorFlow and PyTorch had extensive community support, including comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and forums. Tools like DeepCode had less community support but offered adequate official documentation and support services.
Integration Capabilities
Compatibility with Existing Workflows: GitHub Copilot and SonarQube seamlessly integrated with popular IDEs and CI/CD pipelines. Tools like TensorFlow required more manual setup and integration efforts, especially when used outside their typical data science and machine learning contexts.
API and Extension Support: All tools provided API support, but GitHub Copilot and SonarQube had the most extensive plugin ecosystems, allowing for easy customization and extension of functionalities.
Cross-Platform Support: Most tools, including TensorFlow, PyTorch, and Katalon Studio, were cross-platform compatible, ensuring flexibility across different development environments.
Impact on Development Processes
Productivity Enhancement: GitHub Copilot and Katalon Studio significantly enhanced developer productivity by automating code suggestions and test generation. Deep learning frameworks like TensorFlow were less directly impactful on general software development productivity but provided substantial benefits in specialized AI applications
.
Code Quality Improvement: SonarQube excelled in improving code quality through static analysis, identifying code smells, and enforcing coding standards.
Maintenance and Evolution: DeepCode and SonarQube facilitated ongoing code maintenance through continuous analysis and refactoring suggestions, aiding long-term software evolution.
Cost Considerations
Licensing and Subscription Costs: Tools like SonarQube offered both open-source and enterprise editions, providing flexible pricing options. GitHub Copilot required a subscription fee, whereas TensorFlow and PyTorch were open-source and free to use.
Training and Implementation Costs: TensorFlow and PyTorch had higher training costs due to their complexity. In contrast, tools like GitHub Copilot and Katalon Studio had lower implementation and training costs due to their ease of use and availability of learning resources.
Visual Representation of Findings
The
Table 3 summarizes the key differences and similarities between the tools based on the criteria used.
Figure 3. Bar chart showing the comparison of different AI development tools on a scale of 1 to 5.
Figure 4. Bar chart showing the comparison of different AI development tools on a scale of 1 to 5.
Table 3. Comparative Overview of AI Tools.
Criteria | GitHub Copilot | DeepCode | TensorFlow | PyTorch | SonarQube | Katalon Studio |
Accuracy | High | High | High | High | Moderate | High |
Speed | High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | High |
Ease of Use | High | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | High |
Learning Curve | Low | Moderate | High | High | Moderate | Low |
Integration | Excellent | Good | Good | Good | Excellent | Good |
Community Support | Moderate | Low | High | High | Moderate | Moderate |
Licensing Cost | Subscription | Free | Free | Free | Free/Enterprise | Subscription |
Chart: Usability and Learning Curve
4.2. Performance Metrics
The
Table 4 presents a sample data on a scale of 1 to 5 for various AI tools based on Usability and Learning Curve. The scale 1 is the lowest (hardest to use or steepest learning curve) while 5 is the highest (easiest to use or flattest learning curve).
Table 4. Sample data for usability and learning cure metrics.
AI Tool | Usability | Learning Curve |
GitHub Copilot | 5 | 2 |
Katalon Studio | 4 | 3 |
TensorFlow | 3 | 5 |
PyTorch | 3 | 4 |
SonarQube | 4 | 3 |
DeepCode | 5 | 2 |
Figure 5. Bar chart of various AI tools based on Usability and Learning Curve.
The Bar Chart presented the Usability and Learning Cure Scores of AI Development Tools. The Usability showed how easy a tool is to use (higher is better), while the Learning Curve showed how easy it is to learn the tool (lower scores represent a steeper learning curve).
Graph: Impact on Productivity and Code Quality
The
Figure 3 is a spider radar chart, while
Figure 4 is an interactive radar chart used to illustrate the impact of the compared tools on different aspects such as productivity enhancement, code quality improvement, and maintenance support. Each axis of the radar chart represent how they compare across different dimensions showing their strengths and areas of specialization:
Productivity Enhancement: Tools like GitHub Copilot and Katalon Studio have higher scores, demonstrating their strong impact on developer productivity.
Code Quality Improvement: SonarQube leads in this category, excelling in static analysis and code quality enforcement.
Maintenance Support: SonarQube and DeepCode rank highest for continuous analysis and refactoring support.
Figure 6. Radar diagram showing AI development tools development.
Figure 7. Line graph diagram showing AI development tools development.
Pie Chart: Cost Breakdown
The
Figure 8 provides a quick visual of the cost considerations for the tools showing the proportion of tools that are free, open-source, subscription-based, or require enterprise licensing on a scale of 1 to 5 metrics of number of tools against subscription.
Table representing the tool cost model distribution for the pie chart.
Cost Model | Tools | Proportion |
Free & Open-Source | TensorFlow, PyTorch | 40% |
Subscription-Based | GitHub Copilot | 20% |
Enterprise & Open-Source | SonarQube | 20% |
Enterprise Licensing | Katalon Studio, DeepCode | 40% |
Free & Open-Source: Includes TensorFlow and PyTorch (40%).
Subscription-Based: GitHub Copilot (20%).
Enterprise & Open-Source: SonarQube offers both options (20%).
Enterprise Licensing: Katalon Studio and DeepCode (40%).
Figure 8. Pie chart showing the distribution of AI tools based on their cost models.
This chart helps to visualize how the tools vary in their licensing models, reflecting their accessibility and flexibility for different organizations.
Summary of Analysis Findings
Through this comparative analysis, it is evident that different AI tools serve varying purposes in system development. GitHub Copilot and Katalon Studio excel in enhancing productivity with their user-friendly interfaces and real-time assistance. TensorFlow and PyTorch are powerful for specialized AI applications but come with a steeper learning curve. SonarQube and DeepCode provide valuable contributions to code quality and maintenance. The choice of the best tool depends on the specific needs of the development team, the project's complexity, and the available resources for training and integration.
5. Discussion of Results
5.1. Interpretation of Results
Interpret the findings in the context of the research objectives. Discuss how each tool contributes to improved outcomes in AI system development.
The comparative analysis results showed that the choice of tool depends on the specific requirements of the development project, the expertise of the team, and the desired outcomes.
The study objectives aimed to evaluate and compare AI system development tools to identify their contributions to improved outcomes. Findings reveal how each tool excels in different areas. From
Figure 5, GitHub Copilot is highly user-friendly (usability score of 5) but has a steep learning curve (score of 2), aiding in rapid prototyping and boosting efficiency. Katalon Studio, with a usability score of 4 and a learning curve of 3, excels in automating test cases and is well-suited for CI/CD pipelines. TensorFlow and PyTorch, scoring 3 in usability, are powerful yet complex, with steep learning curves (5 for TensorFlow, 4 for PyTorch). The tools are best for advanced AI model development. SonarQube and DeepCode (usability scores scales of 4 and 5, respectively) focus on code quality assurance and security, with moderate to steep learning curves, enhancing software reliability and reducing technical debt. The analysis suggests that tool selection should align with project needs, team expertise, and desired outcomes, balancing efficiency, quality assurance, and advanced AI modeling capabilities.
5.2. I Implications for Practice
The comparative analysis underscores the importance of strategic AI tool selection in software development, emphasizing that the choice of tools can have far-reaching implications for both the efficiency and quality of the development process. For software engineers and developers, aligning the toolset with the project's specific requirements is crucial. Advanced AI tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch are indispensable for complex projects involving machine learning, while GitHub Copilot and DeepCode can enhance productivity for more routine coding tasks
. Organizations stand to benefit from this alignment by optimizing their investment in tools that support their strategic goals, such as rapid prototyping or quality assurance. Furthermore, the integration of tools like GitHub Copilot and DeepCode can significantly streamline the development process, freeing up developers to engage in more innovative work, which can lead to greater job satisfaction and a culture of innovation. Lastly, the use of analytical tools like SonarQube and DeepCode can greatly improve code quality and security, allowing developers to proactively address potential issues, thereby reducing the risk of costly errors and vulnerabilities in the final product. The findings of the comparative analysis have several practical implications for software engineers, developers, and organizations:
Tool Selection Based on Project Needs
AI tool selection should align with project requirements. TensorFlow and PyTorch, suitable for complex AI research, require a steeper learning curve for software engineers and developers. In contrast, GitHub Copilot and DeepCode enhance coding efficiency and quality. Organizations should select tools based on project objectives, prioritizing GitHub Copilot for rapid prototyping and Katalon Studio or SonarQube for rigorous testing and quality assurance.
Boosting Developer Productivity
AI tools significantly enhance productivity. For developers, GitHub Copilot and DeepCode automate routine coding tasks, allowing focus on more complex work. For organizations, automation accelerates development cycles, reducing time to market and costs by minimizing manual reviews and debugging.
Improving Software Quality and Security
SonarQube and DeepCode improve code quality and security by identifying issues early. For developers, this reduces production flaws. For organizations, AI tools help maintain high software reliability standards, especially in regulated sectors like finance and healthcare.
Facilitating Learning and Skill Development
Although some tools require a steep learning curve, they expand developer skill sets. Mastering TensorFlow and PyTorch allows developers to engage in advanced AI projects. Organizations investing in training enable teams to leverage AI effectively and stay competitive in a rapidly evolving tech landscape.
Enabling Better Resource Allocation
AI tools automate routine tasks, allowing developers to focus on strategic activities like architecture design. For organizations, automation improves resource allocation, supports innovation, and enhances operational efficiency.
Enhancing Collaboration and Integration
AI tools foster collaboration and streamline workflows. GitHub Copilot ensures consistent coding practices and mitigates integration challenges for developers. Organizations can integrate AI tools like Katalon Studio into CI/CD pipelines, automating testing and enhancing collaboration between development and QA teams.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Tool selection requires balancing usability and functionality. Developers aim to maximize productivity while minimizing complexity. Organizations must conduct a cost-benefit analysis; despite the steep learning curve of tools like TensorFlow, their long-term AI capabilities can justify the investment.
Driving Innovation and Competitive Advantage
AI tools drive innovation by enabling new AI-driven products. PyTorch facilitates cutting-edge projects for developers. For organizations, adopting AI tools optimizes development processes, enables faster product cycles, and maintains competitive advantage.
Summary
This comparative study demonstrates that integrating artificial intelligence tools in system development enhances productivity and software quality, fostering learning and innovation. The selection of a suitable tool should depend on the project's requirements, the development team's expertise, and the organization's strategic goals. By effectively utilizing each tool's strengths, software engineers, developers, and organizations can optimize their results in AI system development.
5.3. Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the selection of AI tools is constrained by the availability of relevant documentation, user feedback, and performance metrics. This may have excluded emerging or niche tools that could offer unique advantages. Second, the evaluation metrics focused primarily on technical performance, usability, and the learning curve, which may not capture the full range of factors affecting tool effectiveness, such as long-term maintenance, scalability, and integration complexity. Additionally, the study relied on subjective assessments of certain criteria, such as usability, which could vary based on user expertise and specific project contexts. Future research should consider a broader set of tools and incorporate more diverse evaluation metrics to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Summary of Findings
The main findings of the study reveal that AI tools significantly enhance system development across various dimensions, including productivity, software quality, and developer efficiency. Tools like GitHub Copilot and DeepCode excel in automating code generation and providing real-time code quality insights, making them particularly beneficial for streamlining the development process. Katalon Studio and SonarQube offer robust testing and quality assurance capabilities, contributing to higher software reliability and security. The comparative analysis indicates that while some tools have a steeper learning curve, their advanced features and performance benefits can justify the initial investment in learning and integration. The study also highlights the importance of selecting tools that align with specific project needs, team expertise, and organizational goals. Overall, the strategic use of AI tools in system development can lead to improved outcomes, faster development cycles, and better resource allocation.
6.2. Recommendations
When selecting AI development tools, align choices with project needs, considering task complexity and required features. TensorFlow and PyTorch are recommended for advanced AI tasks, while GitHub Copilot and DeepCode suit general coding and code quality analysis. Consider the learning curve, opting for user-friendly tools such as GitHub Copilot or Katalon Studio for teams with less AI experience. Ensure seamless integration with existing environments and prioritize productivity-enhancing tools such as GitHub Copilot's real-time suggestions and DeepCode's automated reviews. Focus on software quality and security by choosing robust tools such as SonarQube and Katalon Studio. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to balance initial investment against long-term value, prioritizing user-centric factors to improve adoption. Stay informed about tool updates to adapt to evolving project requirements. These guidelines can enhance overall productivity and software quality.
6.3. Future Research
Future research on AI system development tools should investigate emerging AI advancements, such as reinforcement learning and explainable AI, evaluate long-term impacts on productivity, and examine user experience factors influencing adoption. Investigations should also focus on integrating multiple AI tools within workflows, their impact on developer creativity, and ethical considerations, including bias and transparency. Furthermore, comparative analyses across industries, the role of AI in Agile and DevOps methodologies, cost-benefit evaluations, and the utilization of AI to modernize legacy systems can provide valuable insights into optimizing AI tool implementation in software development
| [33] | Mahboob, M. A., Ahmed, M. S. M., Zia, Z., Ali, M., & Ahmed, A. M. (2024, August 1). Future of artificial intelligence in agile software development. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2408.00703 |
[33]
.
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial Intelligence |
CI/CD Pipeline | Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment or Delivery |
IDE | Integrated Development Interphase |
QA | Quality Assurance |
ANOVA | Analysis Variance |
API | Application Programming Interphase |
NLTK | Natural Learning Toolkit |
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
| [1] |
Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., & Zheng, X. (2016). TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning. Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 265-283.
|
| [2] |
Al-Bdour, G., Al-Qurran, R., Al‐Ayyoub, M., & Shatnawi, A. (2019, January 1). A detailed comparative study of open source deep learning frameworks. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1903.00102
|
| [3] |
Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Review. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-10021-3
|
| [4] |
Bajwa, J., Munir, U., Nori, A. V., & Williams, B. (2021, July 1). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine. Royal College of Physicians, 8(2), e188-e194.
https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2021-0095
|
| [5] |
Barenkamp, M., Rebstadt, J., & Thomas, O. (2020, July 26). Applications of AI in classical software engineering. Springer Nature, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42467-020-00005-4
|
| [6] |
Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
|
| [7] |
Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Vincent, P. "Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1798-1828, Aug. 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50
|
| [8] |
Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., and E. Motta, "Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges," Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 9, article no. 259, Aug. 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3
|
| [9] |
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2022). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company.
|
| [10] |
Chen, Y., Liu, Z., & Zhang, X. (2022). Real-time AI on the edge: A framework for large-scale deployment. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(4), 3158-3170.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3114624
|
| [11] |
Cheng, Q., Sahoo, D., Saha, A., Yang, W., Liu, C., Woo, G., Singh, M., Saverese, S., & Hoi, S. C. H. (2023, January 1). AI for IT Operations (AIOps) on cloud platforms: Reviews, opportunities and challenges. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.04661
|
| [12] |
Chollet, F. (2015). Keras. GitHub Repository.
https://github.com/fchollet/keras
|
| [13] |
Crawford, T., Duong, S., Fueston, R., Lawani, A., Owoade, S., Uzoka, A., Parizi, R. M., & Yazdinejad, A. (2023, January 1). AI in software engineering: A survey on project management applications. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2307.15224
|
| [14] |
Deng, J., Zhang, L., & Wang, H. (2022). AI-driven development tools: Toward the future of autonomous programming. Journal of Machine Learning Systems, 15(1), 45-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmls.2022.45
|
| [15] |
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press, 2003.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753
|
| [16] |
Felderer, M., & Ramler, R. (2021, January 1). Quality assurance for AI-based systems: Overview and challenges (Introduction to interactive session). Springer Science+Business Media, 33-42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65854-0_3
|
| [17] |
Fred D. Davis, "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
|
| [18] |
Garg, S., Pundir, P., Rathee, G., Gupta, P. K., Garg, S., & Ahlawat, S. (2022, January 1). On continuous integration/continuous delivery for automated deployment of machine learning models using MLOps. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.03541
|
| [19] |
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
|
| [20] |
Herremans, D. (2021, January 1). aiSTROM–A roadmap for developing a successful AI strategy. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 9, 155826-155838.
https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3127548
|
| [21] |
Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2017). spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks, and incremental parsing. To Appear.
|
| [22] |
Jackson, P. (1998). Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley.
|
| [23] |
Jakubik, J., Vössing, M., Kühl, N., Walk, J., & Satzger, G. (2022, January 1). Data-centric artificial intelligence. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2212.11854
|
| [24] |
Jia, Y., Shelhamer, E., Donahue, J., Karayev, S., Long, J., Girshick, R.,... & Darrell, T. (2014). Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 675-678.
|
| [25] |
Job, M. A. (2021, January 1). Automating and optimizing software testing using artificial intelligence techniques. Science and Information Organization, 12(5).
https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2021.0120571
|
| [26] |
Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2021). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 349(6245), 255-260.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8415
|
| [27] |
Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., and T. Mikolov, "Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification," in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Valencia, Spain, 2017, pp. 427–431.
|
| [28] |
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2021). Speech and language processing. Pearson.
|
| [29] |
Khaliq, Z., Farooq, S. U., & Khan, D. A. (2022, January 1). Artificial intelligence in software testing: Impact, problems, challenges and prospect. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2201.05371
|
| [30] |
Kumar, M., & Rashid, E. (2018, November 8). An efficient software development life cycle model for developing software projects. 8(6), 59-68.
https://doi.org/10.5815/ijeme.2018.06.06
|
| [31] |
Laato, S., Islam, A. K. M. N., Sutinen, E., & Laine, T. H. (2022). Critical factors influencing explainable AI (XAI) adoption: A qualitative study from the end-users’ perspective. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102725.
|
| [32] |
LeCun, Y. (2021). Scalability and flexibility in AI model development: Lessons from TensorFlow and PyTorch. Neural Computing Today, 29(5), 98-107.
https://doi.org/10.1126/nct-29.5.98
|
| [33] |
Mahboob, M. A., Ahmed, M. S. M., Zia, Z., Ali, M., & Ahmed, A. M. (2024, August 1). Future of artificial intelligence in agile software development. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2408.00703
|
| [34] |
Mitchell, M. (1998). An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press.
|
| [35] |
Nascimento, E., Nguyen-Duc, A., Sundbø, I., & Conte, T. (2020, January 1). Software engineering for artificial intelligence and machine learning software: A systematic literature review. Cornell University.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2011.03751
|
| [36] |
Ortega-Bolaños, A., Aguirre, H., & Tanaka, K. (2024). Ethical AI: A comprehensive review of tools for developing and assessing AI-based systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67(1), 23-40.
|
| [37] |
Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G.,... & Chintala, S. (2019). PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 8024-8035.
|
| [38] |
Preskill, J. (2020). Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2, 79.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-02-06-79
|
| [39] |
Rai, A., Brown, P., & Lee, H. (2021). Democratizing AI: Making machine learning accessible to non-experts. Journal of AI Research and Development, 34(2), 145-160.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JARD.2021.134
|
| [40] |
Raji, I. D., Bender, E. M., & Lemoine, G. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an engineering practice for AI ethics. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 205-215.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287593
|
| [41] |
Ricca, F., Marchetto, A., & Stocco, A. (2021, April 1). AI-based test automation: A grey literature analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1109/icstw52544.2021.00051
|
| [42] |
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson.
|
| [43] |
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press.
|
| [44] |
Szeliski, R. (2010). Computer vision: Algorithms and applications. Springer.
|
| [45] |
Toreini, E., Aitken, M., & Coopamootoo, K. (2020). The relationship between trust in AI and fairness: Lessons from algorithmic decision-making in the public sector. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 290-299.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287595
|
| [46] |
Z. C. Lipton, "The Mythos of Model Interpretability," Communications of the ACM, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 36-43, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3233231
|
| [47] |
Zhang, Z., Li, Q., Huang, J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Code review meets static analysis and machine learning. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(6), 666-684.
|
| [48] |
Zoph, B., & Le, Q. V. (2021). Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations, 2220-2229.
https://doi.org/10.5555/3305890.3306078
|
Cite This Article
-
APA Style
Umeh, I. I., Umeh, K. C. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of AI System Development Tools for Improved Outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
Copy
|
Download
ACS Style
Umeh, I. I.; Umeh, K. C. A Comparative Analysis of AI System Development Tools for Improved Outcomes. Int. J. Sustain. Manag. Inf. Technol. 2025, 11(1), 1-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
Copy
|
Download
AMA Style
Umeh II, Umeh KC. A Comparative Analysis of AI System Development Tools for Improved Outcomes. Int J Sustain Manag Inf Technol. 2025;11(1):1-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
Copy
|
Download
-
@article{10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11,
author = {Ikechukwu Innocent Umeh and Kobimdi Cordelia Umeh},
title = {A Comparative Analysis of AI System Development Tools for Improved Outcomes},
journal = {International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
pages = {1-20},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsmit.20251101.11},
abstract = {This study presents a comparative analysis of various artificial intelligence (AI) system development tools, emphasizing their effectiveness in enhancing software engineering outcomes. As AI technologies continue to evolve, tools designed for their development have become pivotal in optimizing processes, such as code generation, testing, and deployment. This research systematically evaluates prominent AI tools such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, and GitHub Copilot based on standardized criteria including usability, scalability, performance, and integration capabilities. This study also examines the impact of selected AI tools on collaborative development practices and team dynamics within software projects. Furthermore, the study explored the ethical considerations and potential biases inherent in AI-assisted development, emphasizing the importance of responsible tool selection and usage. The findings indicated that the selection of appropriate AI tools can significantly impact productivity, code quality, and project success. By identifying the strengths and limitations of these tools, this study provides valuable insights for practitioners, aiding them in making informed decisions that align with specific project requirements. Additionally, the analysis highlights gaps in the current landscape of AI development tools and suggests future research directions for fostering innovation in this critical area of software engineering. The findings underscore the need for ongoing education and training for developers to effectively leverage evolving AI technologies in their workflows.},
year = {2025}
}
Copy
|
Download
-
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Comparative Analysis of AI System Development Tools for Improved Outcomes
AU - Ikechukwu Innocent Umeh
AU - Kobimdi Cordelia Umeh
Y1 - 2025/01/17
PY - 2025
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
DO - 10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
T2 - International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies
JF - International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies
JO - International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies
SP - 1
EP - 20
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2575-5110
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsmit.20251101.11
AB - This study presents a comparative analysis of various artificial intelligence (AI) system development tools, emphasizing their effectiveness in enhancing software engineering outcomes. As AI technologies continue to evolve, tools designed for their development have become pivotal in optimizing processes, such as code generation, testing, and deployment. This research systematically evaluates prominent AI tools such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, and GitHub Copilot based on standardized criteria including usability, scalability, performance, and integration capabilities. This study also examines the impact of selected AI tools on collaborative development practices and team dynamics within software projects. Furthermore, the study explored the ethical considerations and potential biases inherent in AI-assisted development, emphasizing the importance of responsible tool selection and usage. The findings indicated that the selection of appropriate AI tools can significantly impact productivity, code quality, and project success. By identifying the strengths and limitations of these tools, this study provides valuable insights for practitioners, aiding them in making informed decisions that align with specific project requirements. Additionally, the analysis highlights gaps in the current landscape of AI development tools and suggests future research directions for fostering innovation in this critical area of software engineering. The findings underscore the need for ongoing education and training for developers to effectively leverage evolving AI technologies in their workflows.
VL - 11
IS - 1
ER -
Copy
|
Download
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
