We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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."Measuring test coverage helps in one of the most challenging tasks. It has logic that can help to select the right set of scenarios and know what coverage it will provide."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"It takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"The modeling is a game-changer."
"Integration with TDM, test data management tool, provides the ability to generate data or use identified (preset or parametrized) test data. It allows significant expansion of test coverage and flexibility, without creating new tests and needing to maintain them."
"It gives us an idea of creating the visual diagrams, which are quite easy to use. It is helpful in creating our business processes."
"Integration with automation is one of the reasons we started to consider moving to this tool from our original tool for implementing test modeling. ARD appears to have better integration with Selenium. It also has the ability to record scripts/flows using Selenium Builder and import them into ARD, which will then create and optimize a model based on that."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"There are many good features with DOORS. The solution has a concept of streams and baselines, as well as a concept of components. A component is a subproject inside a project."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is easier to expand to build a backend with several servers, so you can also use it to scale up to several hundreds of users without major problems."
"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."
"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."
"Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"A template in App Test should be created in advance. This has proven to be time consuming. The process is not fully automated, because there is a lot of manual intervention is required."
"When you are in Jira or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult."
"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 8th in Application Requirements Management with 20 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 11 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 7.8, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8. 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 Next Generation writes "An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira and Sealights, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Jira, Polarion Requirements and Helix ALM. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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.