We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and PractiTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."It gives us an idea of creating the visual diagrams, which are quite easy to use. It is helpful in creating our business processes."
"The scale possibilities are endless, especially when combined with all the other products that CA has to offer."
"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."
"It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing."
"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."
"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."
"It takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer could improve the UI. Other solutions have a much better UI. The new UI should have a new modern framework."
"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."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"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."
"The solution could improve security and authentication."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. 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 PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps.
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.
