Helix ALM Reviews

The primary use case is controlling and documenting project documents, requirements, tests, traceability between them, and coupling to the execution of text. Helix ALM is also used to track bugs and link them to validation testing.

Helix ALM is insanely configurable. We can really configure the solution and change it to do pretty much everything we want with only a couple of people. I have been in different roles along the way from principal contributor to project manager and with Helix ALM I rarely need IT, people, to make changes. I can be at an admin level and make the changes I need quickly and deploy them.

The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility.

One thing that distinguishes Helix ALM from other solutions is that it is a hybrid cloud model. Helix ALM is not a full cloud implementation like Valerian, Jira Jama, or Atlassian, where we just go through a browser onto the cloud. In the case of Helix, we have code that goes on our computer and then that communicates to the cloud. We have the backup and distribution capability of the cloud, but we have code executing on our machine, and we don't need to worry much about speed and internet lag problems.

The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement.

Adding snapshots for testing would be a valuable addition to Helix ALM.

The functionality to import and export from Microsoft Word within Helix ALM would be a great improvement.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable and I give the stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable and we currently have 100 users.

The technical support is excellent.

Positive

Previously to Helix ALM, I used Atlassian tools, Rational Rose Suite, Rational Unified Process, and the web-based Jama Jira. 

The initial setup is complexly straightforward. The vendor offers support where they come and set up the solution for a fee.

I give the setup a nine out of ten.

The deployment can take between a few days to weeks depending on the workflow and requires two people.

The implementation was completed in-house with the help of a consultant.

I have seen a return on investment with Helix ALM.

I give the solution a nine out of ten for pricing.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I suggest when implementing the solution, focus on the automation which allows us to configure and start simple before going complex. Do not try to deploy using all the bells and whistles at once.

I use the solution in my company to keep historical data at the moment.

I also use Helix ALM to manage defects, keep track of the history of defects, and for user stories.

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.

I have been using Helix ALM for five years. My company is a customer of Helix ALM.

The tool offers high stability.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a three out of ten.

Just one person in my organization uses the solution.

I use the solution only when needed in my organization.

There are no plans to increase the use of the solution in my company.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Our company stopped using Helix ALM and moved to Jira completely, and the only reason we have kept Helix ALM is because when we first started the business, we had captured all of the data around user stories and defects with Helix ALM. Our company doesn't want to transfer all of the data from Helix ALM across to Jira because it would be too time-consuming, but we prefer Jira as it is easier to use than Helix ALM.

I wasn't involved in our company's initial setup phase of Helix ALM.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

I rate the product price a nine on a one to ten scale, where one is low price and ten is high price.

I rate the overall tool a two out of ten.

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.

I would say that Helix ALM's greatest value is that it allows you to have a clear view of your current configuration and dependencies backward tested. If you have to have backward compatibility, it allows you to see that. It also allows you to explore new branches for optimization going forward. It would be a great match for integrating decision trees.

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. 

There're other platforms that do essentially the same thing. You can go to a math lab and say here's a big library of mathematical tools that you can plug into your process. I do process definition and configuration management; these two areas combined with AI ML would be a killer application.

Because algorithms don't get sick, they just spit out answers and if you can't interrogate the data, then you need to look at it harder. And that's what it's all about. Its continuous improvement and, nonstop excellence. If you look at what grows hyper-scale environments, it's just that. Hyper-scale environments such as, Amazon and Google and all the big platforms. That's what it takes, basically non-stop improvement.

I have three years of experience with Helix ALM.

I would describe my impressions of the stability of the product as undetermined. I haven't found any holes yet. I have found areas of improvement, but heck, it's software so they could develop it. I haven't found holes yet specifically because I'm not looking to improve their product. I'm only trying to take what they have to help other people solve their problems. I'm not functioning just to improve the product, I'm functioning to help customers use Helix ALM to solve their problems.

I don't deal with them directly, but I would rate them as adequate.

What you can't measure, you can't optimize. Helix ALM helps you measure, automate, and visualize your processes. It's a great tool to model and optimize. It also keeps your configuration from falling out of alignment with multiple groups.

The product requires a clear understanding of what you want to do because it's a make environment. So it's like handing an artist a blank sheet with any color in any pallet or any paintbrush you want. They have examples, so in the hands of an expert, you can create great products. The only advice would be is understand what you want to do and how you get there using Perforce and then I would recommend using MBSE development methodologies.

Filtering tables of requirements and defects, because it allows me to easily focus on the items that I need to work on for any given day.

It allows us to prioritize work for a given time period and sort by priority when viewing the status of our work.

1. The look and feel of the interface is very outdated.
2. There is a steep learning curve for novice users to accomplish even basic tasks.
3. The MDI interface usually interferes with what you’re trying to see.
4. A modern web interface as the sole interface would be much preferred.

Eight years.

In previous versions, the client would disconnect from the TestTrack server if I switched from a wired network connection to wireless (while undocking my laptop). This seems to be fixed in recent versions.

When searching across large databases, it’s difficult to find specific items based on the Summary field.

I haven’t used Seapine / Perforce tech support directly. I have only interacted with our internal TestTrack administrator for technical issues.

We have used TestTrack for as long as I’ve been employed at my current company.

I don’t perform the initial setup of servers or projects.

I don’t know about this aspect.

I didn’t choose this product, but I’ve used other similar ALM softwares. Atlassian Jira is a far superior product in my experience.

Don’t attempt to integrate other products into TestTrack.

Example: Automatically linking code revision numbers to defect fixes or extracting requirements into other formats.

Integration with Subversion.

The testing process was more manageable.

Since I used, it has probably improved.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's great.

It's great.

No previous solution was in place.

It wasn't that hard.

We used an in-house team.

The test management component (ability to define and manage a set of test cases and test sets to be run), and the test metrics were often used by me.

During that time the tool was in use by me, the test organization coalesced into a pyramid (centralized/organized) with Test Manager on top of the pyramid, Test Leads (for each shift) below the Test Manager, and then the Test Engineers creating tests, mapping requirements, and executing the tests.

It improved bilateral communications. Instantaneous progress metrics were viewable by the entire team. At the time, The Configuration Control Board partly relied upon TestTrack reports to judge the efficacy testing and to help determine the next set of fixes required to be placed into the release baseline.

I've used the TestTrack test case management portion for approximately two and a half years during the life of the project in a medical device manufacturer’s R&D organization.

There was an effort to automate the scripts so that signals, including GUI key strokes and message traffic could be sent to the device without human intervention, but would capture and report results in the defined format.

The test cases and the automation was hard to maintain for complex scripts with multiple subtest calls and I/O. It was judged that more and better technical support was required to fix broken scripts and monitor modifications to subtest cases. In other words, we were missing needed hands-on management and dedicated Subject Matter Experts (SMAs). Should we have found the appropriate resources, and given appropriate planning and capital, the test environment could have been expanded throughout the R&D department for Verification and Validation.

The Seapine representatives and the reps that helped us to land the test server were very responsive, helpful, and knowledgeable. We required training and integration of the tool within our test environment. They understood our needs and sold us exactly what was required.

It should be noted that we had the DOORS requirement tool with several hundred requirements that was considered the record of origin for all of the test case development. So there was a need to keep the DOORS tool and add a method to synchronize requirements between DOORS and the TestTrack environment. They helped us tailor their tools suite and they wrote the original export/import routines for the DOORS requirements interface.

The client server setup required a savvy IT person to help set up the server and permissions. I would say that our configuration was average in complexity. Each client required some very minimal setup.

The implementation was in-house with some vendor training. However, recall that the vendor provided us with a utility to transfer and synchronize our DOORS requirements to the TestTrack tool. I would advise at least one-day training course for any that use the tool including managers and test engineers.

ROI was traceability, real-time metrics, and test environment integrity. A graphically remote test manager could evaluate information on his/her computer dashboard to identify progress (e.g. how many tests created, approved, test sets, test runs, created/approved status, test cases populated within specific test sets, test cases passed, ID of test step failures, requirements without tests, tester ID, dates of when results were achieved and more).

Their current pricing strategy allows for economy at three levels:

• Perpetual for $595.00 (upfront purchase and yearly maintenance cost)
• Hosted $30/seat (10 seat minimum; free support and upgrades)
• Subscription $30/seat (unlimited users; free support and upgrade)

Test runs and test cases are the most valuable features.

When used for bug reporting, the product is great when searching for specific bugs. The search feature is highly customizable.

It is too slow and unstable, and the performance could be better. Also, we cannot fully use this product on mobile versions, or on the web-based versions.

I've been using the Pro version for two years. I was the QA Process Technician. I was an admin responsible for adding the users to the database, managing licences, and managing security groups.

No issues encountered.

The software was slow and, sometimes, crashed for a few users.

The product cannot be easily customized for specific needs. Also, the people using mobile platforms cannot quickly access the databases, and I couldn't find a web-based version, which would have been useful.

Customer service was so-so. They didn't seem willing to add the missing features for our project needs.

Technical support is okay, but often too generic. I had to repeat myself a lot about what I wanted to achieve with the software.

I gave up on Test Track Pro and used JIRA instead.

It's too expensive for the quality of the product.

I tried JIRA, Mantis, and Rally. However I had to give up on Test Track Pro for several reasons.

Check your needs and budget as you may find a better product for cheaper.