Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs Testuff comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and Testuff based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Test Management Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Mohammed Hashim
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "​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."
  • "This tool reduces the cost associated with test cases, automation script generation, and maintenance costs."
  • "It is less costly when compared to other tools on the market."
  • "Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility."
  • "At present, Broadcom works through partners rather than dealing directly with the consumer. When there are discounts given, it's up to the partner as to whether they want to give that discount to the customer. Sometimes, the partners decide to take the discount themselves. Pricewise, I would give ARD's price a rating of three out of five."
  • "The pricing model is based on how many people are using it. We have an annual license. There are not any additional costs."
  • More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:The pricing model is based on how many people are using it. We have an annual license. There are not any additional costs.
    Top Answer:Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer could improve the UI. Other solutions have a much better UI. The new UI should have a new modern framework.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    10th
    Views
    420
    Comparisons
    189
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    363
    Rating
    8.0
    31st
    Views
    51
    Comparisons
    35
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Grid Tools Agile Designer, CA ARD, CA Agile Requirements Designer
    Learn More
    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.
    We launched Testuff Ltd. in January 2007 with the simple goal of creating better tools and services for the software quality assurance (QA) community. Our team includes industry veterans who have many years of experience in all aspects of software development and testing. We’re intimately familiar with the full spectrum of testing methodologies – ranging from Agile to Exploratory. And we’ve used many of the most popular software testing suites in the world – both online and via desktop. But we realized that none of these solutions provided the comprehensive support and functionality that we wanted. So we set out to develop smarter software testing tools that could help our users build more powerful, stable, and usable products for their own clients. What emerged is our flagship test management platform – available both as desktop and web-based clients. Testuff is a privately held company.
    Sample Customers
    Williams, Rabobank
    Leica Microsystems, SRA International, TDR, Core Brands, Blackboard, Repete, Roblox
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm43%
    Comms Service Provider21%
    Energy/Utilities Company14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm20%
    Energy/Utilities Company17%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Computer Software Company9%
    No Data Available
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business9%
    Large Enterprise91%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    No Data Available
    Buyer's Guide
    Test Management Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while Testuff is ranked 31st in Test Management Tools. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while Testuff is rated 0.0. The top reviewer of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer writes "Easy to use, beneficial test case visibility, and effective support". On the other hand, Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas Testuff is most compared with .

    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.