We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and Tricentis qTest 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."The scale possibilities are endless, especially when combined with all the other products that CA has to offer."
"The modeling is a game-changer."
"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."
"Defects can be traced in the solution."
"Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"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 takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"I like the way Broadcom ARD inserts test cases in execution mode. Also, ARD can be used apart from Broadcom TDM. It's an add-on through which you supply data through ARD test cases when there is a need for extra data."
"I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
"I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. 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 Tricentis qTest writes "Puts all our test cases in one location where everyone can see them. qTest also allows the segregation of different types of Testing". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest 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.
