We performed a comparison between Helix ALM 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."The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility."
"Helix ALM enables users to build, make efficient and effective decisions, and use least-cost methods for maximum benefit, as fast as possible. They allow you to see and visualize your configuration."
"The tool offers high stability."
"I use the product to create test cases and share them with my team and manager."
"The ability to time test runs gives the tester the ability to compare calculated times to actual times it takes for a test case to run."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the UI. The structure of test cases is easy to understand."
"I use the solution for test management."
"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."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it."
"The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement."
"It would be great to see Perforce's strategy is for implementing intelligence into the process via AI or ML. It's not clearly defined, at least not to my knowledge."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"I've encountered at some point, some difficulties on the administration side, but I don't remember exactly what they were."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"The platform needs improvement regarding performance and creating links."
"Reporting could be more flexible regarding repeating reports."
"The test suite management has room for improvement as well as better reporting."
"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."
"There are a number of improvements that have been requested. While I don't have a list of these requests available, many can be found on Gurock's forum."
Helix ALM is ranked 16th in Test Management Tools with 7 reviews while TestRail is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews. Helix ALM is rated 6.4, while TestRail is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Helix ALM writes "Helix ALM is insanely configurable, with great traceability, and flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". Helix ALM is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Polarion Requirements, whereas TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis qTest, TFS, Tricentis Tosca and TestLodge. See our Helix ALM 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.