We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and IBM Rational Quality Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"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."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"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."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"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."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"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."
"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."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6. 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 Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. IBM Rational Quality Manager report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.
