Compare CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS

CA Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 10 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 5 reviews. CA Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of CA Agile Requirements Designer writes "‚ÄčThe scale possibilities are endless, especially when combined with all the other products that CA has to offer". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes "DOORS is highly customize-able, better than DNG, but maybe not the tool for distributed teams". CA Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, JIRA and Conformiq, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with JIRA, Polarion Requirements and Jama Connect. See our CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
CA ARD has some beautiful features which I haven't found anywhere else. For example, when designing or creating our test cases and doing scenarios, we are able to restrict our flows. If we take a data link between two processes, we can actually restrict it, so that, in production, if our functionality breaks down, we can restrict that and all the flows related to it will be removed from the test data set.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.The ability to create models/diagrams at multiple levels (nest/embed them) helps in taking models from high-level business requirements and building them into detailed requirements models and test models. Plus, it helps reuse lower level models. It also allows maintaining models at appropriate levels, even for very complex systems/solutions.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.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.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.Defects can be traced in the solution.The optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage.

Read more »

The solution is stable.The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules.It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access.Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain.

Read more »

Cons
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.Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around.It would help if it would save different subsets of test cases, use cases, etc., of a given diagram, for different purposes and provide an easy way to name those subsets.The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them.Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test.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.Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script.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.

Read more »

It's difficult to set the code on the solution.It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now.It used to be very clunky.I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility.It is less costly when compared to other tools on the market.This tool reduces the cost associated with test cases, automation script generation, and maintenance costs.‚ÄčThe cost of the tool was well worth the benefit that we saw on the back-end.We were able to scale down some resources to basically self-fund our ability to purchase the tool.

Read more »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
5,940
Comparisons
1,755
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
655
Avg. Rating
7.9
Views
9,188
Comparisons
6,188
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
409
Avg. Rating
7.4
Top Comparisons
Compared 35% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Also Known As
Grid Tools Agile Designer, CA ARD
Learn
CA (A Broadcom Company)
IBM
Overview
CA Agile Requirements Designer is an end-to-end requirements gathering, test automation and test case design tool which drastically reduces manual testing effort and enables organizations to deliver quality software to market earlier and at less cost. The optimal set of manual or automated tests can be derived automatically from requirements modeled as unambiguous flowcharts and are linked to the right data and expected results. These tests are updated automatically when the requirements change, allowing organizations to deliver quality software which reflects changing user needs.IBM Rational DOORS is a requirements management application for optimizing requirements communication, collaboration and verification throughout your organization and supply chain. This scalable solution can help you meet business goals by managing project scope and cost. Rational DOORS lets you capture, trace, analyze and manage changes to information while maintaining compliance to regulations and standards. Rational DOORS provides requirements management in a centralized location for better team collaboration, and traceability by linking requirements to design items, test plans, test cases and other requirements. It also provides scalability to address your changing requirements management needs, test tracking toolkit for manual test environments to link requirements to test cases, and integrations to help manage changes to requirements with either a simple pre-defined change proposal system or a more thorough, customizable change control workflow with Rational change management solutions.
Offer
Learn more about CA Agile Requirements Designer
Learn more about IBM Rational DOORS
Sample Customers
Williams, RabobankInfosys, Chevrolet Volt
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm58%
Comms Service Provider17%
Energy/Utilities Company17%
Manufacturing Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm32%
Software R&D Company29%
Insurance Company10%
Engineering Company8%
REVIEWERS
Aerospace/Defense Firm32%
Manufacturing Company16%
Individual & Family Service11%
Comms Service Provider5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company23%
Manufacturing Company20%
Financial Services Firm10%
Government9%
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email