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."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 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 support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"Defects can be traced in the solution."
"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."
"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 scale possibilities are endless, especially when combined with all the other products that CA has to offer."
"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."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"It is a stable solution."
"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."
"The program is very stable."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"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."
"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 improve security and authentication."
"At present, there is no option for test data parameters from ARD for virtual databases. We have to create them in TDM and push them as well. Virtual database connectivity needs to be improved. They need to come up with some areas where they can create synthetic data parameters easily from the test cases that have been designed."
"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."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved."
"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
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, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Helix ALM, Jama Connect 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.
