We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and IBM Rational DOORS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Requirements Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing."
"Helps the communication between the testing organization and the requirements group. It helps us to simplify the work. Instead of dealing with individual test cases, you're working with a model."
"The optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage."
"In terms of meeting business challenges, it helped to shorten the dev/testing cycle by identifying requirements gaps early in the process, by having models shared within the development team. It helped increase test coverage and reduce the number of issues experienced by clients/customers."
"It gives us an idea of creating the visual diagrams, which are quite easy to use. It is helpful in creating our business processes."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"The most valuable features of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer are ease of use, saving time for the team who builds test cases, and visibility of test cases."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing."
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"The next-generation features are good."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution could improve security and authentication."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"I think it's already coming, but it needs more automation aspects. There is a tab for Automation, but I think it's not robust. I think that it's going to be a crucial element of the tool."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer could improve the UI. Other solutions have a much better UI. The new UI should have a new modern framework."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script."
"CA ARD doesn't provide integration with Tosca. The possibility of creating a test case and exporting it into Tosca is not available. Integration with end-to-end automation tools, like Worksoft or Tosca, is not provided by CA ARD as of now."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."
"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"Both the performance and the price could be improved."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 8th in Application Requirements Management with 20 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer writes "Easy to use, beneficial test case visibility, and effective support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes " Offers ability to automate tasks and to track changes within documents and compare different versions of requirements but modeling capabilities could benefit from a web-based tool ". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, Jira and Sealights, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS report.
See our list of best Application Requirements Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Requirements Management 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.