Compare CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation

CA Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 10 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 6th in Application Requirements Management with 2 reviews. CA Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 5.6. The top reviewer of CA Agile Requirements Designer writes "​The 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 Next Generation writes "Simplified our requirement process, helping with requirement creation and reuse". CA Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with JIRA, Tricentis Tosca and Conformiq, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, JIRA and Jama Connect. See our CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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 Next Generation and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
371,639 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 most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them.The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually.

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 »

When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive.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.Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle.As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated.

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.​The 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 »

The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees.You are going to need a beefy server and a fat network pipe to it in order to make DNG and its companion tools work well for users.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
371,639 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
5,918
Comparisons
1,752
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
655
Avg. Rating
7.9
Views
2,889
Comparisons
1,963
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
931
Avg. Rating
5.5
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
Grid Tools Agile Designer, CA ARDRDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC
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 Next Generation offers a smarter way to manage your requirements that can help your teams reduce development costs by up to 57%, accelerate time to market by up to 20%, and lower cost of quality by up to 69%. Designed for collaboration, Rational DOORS Next Generation provides a single platform for managing requirements so that your teams can work more effectively across disciplines, time zones and supply chains.
Offer
Learn more about CA Agile Requirements Designer
Learn more about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation
Sample Customers
Williams, RabobankMajor health insurer
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm58%
Energy/Utilities Company17%
Comms Service Provider17%
Manufacturing Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm36%
Software R&D Company24%
Engineering Company8%
Comms Service Provider8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Manufacturing Company15%
Engineering Company13%
Transportation Company11%
Pharma/Biotech Company11%
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
371,639 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