How can there be comparisons when the rotary aircraft are sometimes used to do things which are both impossible to achieve in fixed wings and more risky.
A fixed wing isn't going to do close-up reconnaissance of power lines, land frequently in unprepared areas or do air-rescue / HEMS.
You would have to incorporate the average level of operational risk per average 1,000,000 flying hours alongside the accident rate to truly compare the safety, and this is very subjective. This means you could assess every 1M hours as being X% corporate airfield-to-airfield, Y% as corporate with one or more ends being off-field, Z% HEMS, etc, attach a risk to each.
If rotary were 30% more accidents per hour flown on simple comparison than fixed wings, that may mean they are substantially safer than fixed-wing for the same risk-area of operation, field to field.
BW