IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management vs. TestRail

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) is an end-to-end engineering solution used to manage system requirements to design, workflow, and test management, extending the functionality of ALM tools for better complex-systems development.N/A
TestRail
Score 6.7 out of 10
N/A
TestRail by Gurock, an IDERA company, is presented as a complete web-based test case management solution to manage, track, and organize your software testing efforts.N/A
Pricing
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Test Management
Comparison of Test Management features of Product A and Product B
IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management
-
Ratings
TestRail
7.0
1 Ratings
14% below category average
Centralized test management00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Manage test hosts and schedules00 Ratings6.01 Ratings
Map tests to user stories00 Ratings6.01 Ratings
Test execution reporting00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
Defect management00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Small Businesses
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Polarion ALM
Polarion ALM
Score 9.3 out of 10
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
OpenText ALM/Quality Center
Score 7.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Likelihood to Recommend
8.8
(22 ratings)
7.0
(1 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.0
(6 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
2.1
(4 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
5.0
(3 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM Engineering Lifecycle ManagementTestRail
Likelihood to Recommend
IBM
IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS former IBM Rational DOORS profits very much from the mighty market position it had till today. It had been the most favored requirement engineering tools suite with the highest investments in the infrastructure concerning hardware, software, and knowledge sources. It was embedded in knowledge sources of test stands, hardware labs, and knowledge database servers. It allowed for some of the highest profit changes and made the fame with it. But the paradigms of requirements engineering change. If not were superseded by completely different approaches for the target solution worlds. The foremost position in the selling tables is unstable if changes are not solved or coped with by the strategist at IBM and their customers. Since the highly successful alternative suits are already at the market, and some are from IBM already the lifecycle for IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS is at the later highs. But the suite is still at the very top and very popular. There are still many problems unsolved and many wishes at the customers to make the use more comfortable and efficient at the overall level. If the time of setting up the software package is passed the adoption get more extended and complicated. There is a lot of work at the stage around and the expertise will be required for a long time from now.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
The integration with other tools, and their user friendly layout and design. It's very comfortable to use and is way better than other tools with the Automation Testing tools, thanks to the great API that is included. Sometimes the integration with Jira is a little faulty, but the links to that tool usually work well. It could be cool if it had a better following for the bug items that were registered on other tools.
Read full review
Pros
IBM
  • Easy to use with well defined template and user defined fields. New team can setup a project area easily by copying an existing template and adding customized fields for their special needs.
  • It can be used during almost the whole project cycle and give us a better view and control on the projects.
  • Lots of built-in report functions.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
  • Beautiful and productive UI.
  • Nice filtering system allowing me to find what I need quickly.
Read full review
Cons
IBM
  • Wireframes are quite basic. If you need intuitive and interactive wireframes to elaborate the requirements. you probably need to define outside the tool and then upload as image.
  • ER (define data dictionaries) modeling is not there.
  • Use case modeling is quite basic. You can visualize the use case and actors relation but the tool does not enforce the rules.
  • Does not support offline work.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
  • Integration with Jira seems [a] little faulty.
  • Increase the API call limit for different editions.
  • Better way to trigger automation suites from TestRail.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
IBM
At the moment we are required by contract to continue to use the IBM DOORS software for our current client. Given that it can be expensive, if we were to use it after our current client's needs were met, we would have to secure other projects in order to justify the continued use of the software.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
No answers on this topic
Usability
IBM
The UI is terrible and not intuitive. Users need training in order to complete tasks. Much like SAP, it's not the clearest tool. The tracing feature is especially complicated because you must write the scripts yourself. There is a learning curve. Also, even the setup, installation, and logging in each time takes a considerable amount of time.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
IBM
It does a basic job and has the potential to complete some robust reporting tasks, however, it really is a clunky piece of software with a terrible user interface that makes using it routinely quite unpleasant. Many of our legacy and maintenance projects still use DOORS but our department and company use many alternatives and are looking for better tools.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
IBM
No problems
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
IBM
It was easier to do all the change management-related activities, even configurations were handled very effectively. New process definitions and initiatives made it easier for better project deliverables. Effective resource allocations and better reporting and defect management. The overall cost of the tool is great too and well within budget.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
TestRail definitely saves times. I work in a company that consists of several development teams, all of which have different processes. Some of the teams leverage test cases, some do not. I've noticed that the turn around time it takes for me to pick up a ticket, QA it, and then pass/fail/send feedback is much faster when there is a test case created as I'm not reading through ticket description/comments to figure out what needs to be QA'd.
Read full review
Return on Investment
IBM
  • If you can setup DOORS to your project, you will experience lower costs.
  • Also, less rework in the project, which means lower times to achieve your milestones.
  • Finally, the cost of setting up a related project is considerably lower, and the estimates obtained in the process are much more precise.
Read full review
IDERA (an Idera, Inc. company)
  • Improved test management process and collaboration inside team.
  • Increased transparency of QA work.
  • Team became more satisfied.
Read full review
ScreenShots