We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and TestRail based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"The product helps us create test cases and reports."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"Integration with Confluence and JIRA."
"The most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"I use the solution for test management."
"Most valuable features are the ease of organizing test cases and a great API for sending results from automated test run results into the database."
"I haven't faced any stability issues using the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"The test suite management has room for improvement as well as better reporting."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"It would be useful if it had its own issue management system. At the moment, it's purely a test management tool and you have to link to a defect management tool, like JIRA. It would be useful if there was an option to use its own defect management tool so that it's integrated and not two separate tools."
"TestRail by Gurock could improve by adding a defect management module tool. It would add a lot of value if I want to install it and I don't have Jira or an isolating team. For example, if I am providing a service it's separated from the development team, it then would be better to have defect management included with the test management. However, as it is now I need to be integrated with Jira or another defect management tool to complete the testing process."
"With TestRail, the APIs are there, but they may not be able to easily integrate with the Jenkins."
"The reports should be more user-friendly."
"I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT. Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited. The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application."
"TestRail's user interface is not great. When you use it for the first time, you will be very uncomfortable and not know how to create test cases. It doesn't have a field for preconditions and post-conditions."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while TestRail is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while TestRail is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest, TFS, Tricentis Tosca and Jira. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. TestRail report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.