We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and Jira 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."Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"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."
"It takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"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 optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage."
"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."
"The scale possibilities are endless, especially when combined with all the other products that CA has to offer."
"Defects can be traced in the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the Burndown Chart to see work that is outstanding."
"The solution is extremely stable."
"The solution offers a lot of plugins."
"It's easy to deploy."
"The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira."
"The way we can define and customize the search queries for the tickets in Jira is most valuable."
"Jira is very useful for project management for internal projects."
"You no longer need to email people. You can mention them right in Jira and have conversations there."
"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."
"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."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"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."
"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 reporting tool and the approval tool need work."
"I don't know if it's the way it's deployed in the organization, but the interface we are provided is not as customizable as other tools. The multi-language report is not enabled in our installation. I don't really know if it's something related to the tool or our installation."
"Backlog pruning and visualization are poor."
"Its UI can be improved a little bit. I know this a business tool and not a commercial tool, but it could be a little bit more interactive like the HP ALM/Quality Center, which provides you the results of graphs and gives you a lot of visual representations. I feel Jira lacks a little bit in this aspect."
"I have to go through a lot of processes to consider it done. I have to log in then change the logins and make it interesting. It's not so good for testing."
"There should be a way to look for specific comments. When we have thousands of comments on a Jira ticket, there is no way to look at the comments of a specific type. In the comments, if there is a way to put a tag, it would be helpful. For example, when there are a lot of lengthy discussions happening on a particular ticket, there could be a conclusion tag or something like that to indicate a conclusion. It would help in sorting the comments based on a certain category, such as conclusion."
"Based on the feedback from my admin, it is sometimes difficult to find some of the features. It is not a big deal, but its configuration interface can be improved to make it easy to find things."
"The automation feature needs to be more user-friendly."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 8th in Application Requirements Management with 20 reviews while Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 254 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while Jira 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 Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, TFS and Sealights, whereas Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Polarion ALM. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Jira 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.
