Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer offers clarity in requirements, reducing post-implementation clarifications. It features an intuitive UI, seamless requirement navigation, and robust model-based testing, efficiently connecting requirements to test cases.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer | 16.9% |
| ConformIQ Creator | 22.8% |
| OpenText Silk Central | 19.6% |
| Other | 40.699999999999996% |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jira | 4.1 | N/A | 91% | 284 interviewsAdd to research |
| OpenText Application Quality Management | 4.0 | N/A | 89% | 208 interviewsAdd to research |
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer user impressions indicate strong satisfaction with customer service and support. Many experienced quick, knowledgeable, and responsive assistance, praising the helpfulness of forums and pre-sales engineering. Several noted improvement post-acquisition, highlighting stability and increased R&D. However, a few pointed out gaps in first-line knowledge, needing R&D involvement for some issues, and delayed solutions. Tech support is frequently rated highly, yet not universally, with some expressing lesser satisfaction.
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 1 |
| Large Enterprise | 16 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 42 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 17 |
| Large Enterprise | 43 |
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer automates the creation of test cases directly from requirements, streamlining quality assurance processes. Its intuitive design and seamless navigation meet users' needs while simplifying the transition from script-based to model-based testing. With strong integration capabilities, it supports continuous development, efficiently managing test data and automating workflows. Despite some usability challenges with large models and a need for better security features, the tool's ability to enhance test coverage while minimizing test cases delivers compelling value. It also offers integration with tools like Jira and ALM, ensuring smooth alignment with existing systems, though improvements in integration with testing engines and comprehensive documentation for automation frameworks would be beneficial.
What are the key features of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer?In industries like software development and IT, Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is implemented to enhance the transition from script-based to model-based testing, optimizing requirements validation and simplifying manual test design. By integrating with existing development tools, it supports continuous development cycles effectively.
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer was previously known as Grid Tools Agile Designer, CA ARD, CA Agile Requirements Designer .
Williams, Rabobank
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone | 4.0 | I've used Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer for four years; it's stable, well-integrated, and saves time in testing, though it's expensive, hard to deploy manually, lacks scalability, and needs better AI integration and first-line support. |
| Senior Presales Engineer at a computer software company with 51-200 employees | 4.0 | I use Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer for DevOps, finding it beneficial for its ease of use, time-saving capabilities, and visibility of test cases. However, the UI could be enhanced with a modern framework for a better experience. |
| Senior Technology Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I rate Broadcom ARD 8/10. I like its stable, scalable test case insertion, but virtual database connectivity, parameter creation, and customer service need improvement. Setup is easy, though better tools exist. |
| Data Insights & Analytics Solution Architect at BT - British Telecom | 3.5 | We use Broadcom ARD for QA requirement validation. Its user-friendly UI, scalability, and stability are excellent, with good support. Though initial setup was challenging, we desire enhanced security/authentication, but are very happy overall. |
| Senior Leader in Software Testing and Process Improvement at a tech company with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I found this solution excellent for multi-level test modeling, improving requirements alignment and test coverage. Its strong integration with TDM and automation reduced development cycles and issues, although model alignment and saving test subsets need improvement. |
| Test Engineer Senior Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 3.0 | I use CA ARD for designing test cases and QC, valuing its unique flow restriction feature. However, I rate it 6/10 because it lacks integration with essential end-to-end automation tools like Tosca, which limits its overall effectiveness. |
| Assistant Director at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I use this solution for user stories and traceability, finding it stable, scalable, and productive, delivering good ROI. I wish its user interface were more friendly, particularly with icon-based attachments, despite valuable defect tracking. |
| Front Line Manager at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees | 4.0 | I find the product's optimization for minimum test cases and maximum coverage very valuable, and its visual diagrams are helpful. However, I need more data flexibility for multiple test sets and better, more automated integration with App Test to reduce manual effort. |
| Senior Consultant at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees | 4.0 | I found CA ARD excellent for model-based testing, enabling automation, reducing effort and costs, and empowering non-programmers. Support is excellent. I'd like improved Agile tool integration for test case linking and maintenance. |
| Automation Engineer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I find the solution's modeling feature a game-changer, greatly improving communication and simplifying my work. While stable and easy to set up, it needs more robust automation. Overall, I rate it a strong eight out of ten, excellent for its current purpose. |
This solution saves a lot of time in the software testing cycle because, with Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer specifically, I am doing a flowchart, and I can extract test cases and use cases to be run and tested on ALM as an integration.
It saves a lot of time because it's a very powerful solution that allows me to design what I see as a flowchart on this application, extracting all possible use cases based on my design, thus saving a very long effort.
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer has a lot of integrations that can improve workflow automation because it can be integrated with anything, including Jira, ALM, TDM, and a set of tools in the leading testing community in the world.
As integration tools, it can be integrated with Jira, ALM, Rally, and TDM.
Integration with AI is an area that needs to be improved quickly.
To be clear, this relates to how to use AI to improve use cases, break down applications, and review designs, as this area needs to be improved quickly because many startups are doing the same with AI.
I have been dealing with this product for four years until now.
The deployment process is very hard, especially if you go for manual installation.
If you're going to use Docker installation, it will be very easy, but manual installation is very hard.
It will take time, require many components, and need configuration editing in many files.
It rates 10 out of 10 regarding stability, performance, and latency.
It's a stable solution, and I didn't face any latency—it's a very good solution.
It is not scalable anymore.
It's not scalable because it doesn't support Kubernetes for making scalability, so I'm just going to increase memory and storage on the same machine.
I rate tech support for the Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer solution as eight out of 10.
I give less for this product because a lot of information is with the R&D team, and I go to them for many issues, but the first line doesn't have all the needed information.
Positive
I didn't work with any competitor of the Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer solution.
Regarding ROI, this area is out of my hands. I didn't notice any changes in my company's costs or time to market after implementing Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer.
It's not affordable; it's very expensive.
It would be suitable only for large customers, and a large customer will think twice before making a deal with Broadcom.
I rate Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer as 8 out of 10.
It will be very nice if Broadcom has questions or comments related to my review and can reach me via email to clarify something.
I want to be a reference for Broadcom.
I don't have any information regarding the visual modeling function specifically.
I'm not dealing with modeling requirements or generating optimized test cases in Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer.
Broadcom takes a lot of information from us as end-users, and they provide fixes within two to five days maximum. My team has raised many enhancement requests and discussed them with Broadcom, and they are adding some of these features to the product itself.
I look forward to receiving an email regarding these reviews, and I can add anything later if I forgot something, earning some points for this contribution on the website.
We are using Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer for DevOps. For example, you might draw the diagram within Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and it will turn these requirements into test cases automatically before you build the code. It all can be done with ease.
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.
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 have been using Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer for approximately six years.
I rate the stability of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer a nine out of ten.
The solution does not require scalability in terms of hardware. For example, a flow diagram use case is processed that does not need scalability.
The support from Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is good and stable. They had improved since the acquisition and now it is super stable and they have increased their R&D team.
The setup of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is simple. You do not need a guide to do it.
The pricing model is based on how many people are using it. We have an annual license. There are not any additional costs.
From an integration standpoint, it is well-suited for integration into the DevOps or platform engineering pipeline.
I rate Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer an eight out of ten.
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.
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 is very stable.
It can be scaled up and down per the needs of the organization.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate technical support at four. This is because not all staff are knowledgeable. They also take too long to provide a solution. For example, even after I have let them know that my timeline is 15 days, I may get an answer only after a month.
Neutral
The initial setup is straightforward, and I would rate it at five out of five.
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.
Overall, I would rate Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer at eight out of ten because there are better tools available in the market that create test cases in such a way that parameters come out easily. Tools such as Tricentis interact well with virtual data warehouses and are able to get at the parameters.
However, if you already have Broadcom TDM, then Broadcom ARD may be a good fit for you.
We have a lot of quality assurance projects which are running. We normally validate the requirements and make sure the requirement scoping or the requirement validations are being done properly. We put the requirement breakdown and requirement scoping into Agile Requirements Designer (ARD). We plan our test cases so that the business user community can actually log into the ARD tool for their project and validate their requirements to see if they have passed the set of quality controls or not.
We are satisfied with the solution.
I can't speak to a particular feature, however, in terms of the way the UI and the response of the tool are set up, including the hierarchy breakdown of the requirements and how they appear on the tool is great. I like how we could navigate from one breakdown to another. It makes the solution very user-friendly which is the main USP of the tool.
With the way we are using the Broadcom ARD tool, the solution provides us with everything we need.
The support that we get from Broadcom is great.
The product scales well.
We have found the solution to be stable.
At this moment, I can't think of any feedback which would need action. We've very happy with the product.
We struggled a bit with the initial setup. It could be easier.
The solution could improve security and authentication. There are security protocols from SHA level one to SHA level two there's the encryption format as well, 128-bit encryption to 256-bit encryption of the data. This is a new trend that is happening right now. From the communication level and the security level, Broadcom needs to enhance its offering
We've been using the solution for more than a year.
The stability is perfect. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
As a solution, it's scalable. We are handling a lot of projects via ARD at this moment, I'm taking in a lot of applications. So far, so good.
Technical support has been good overall. They are helpful and responsive. We are happy with their level of service.
We were previously just using Excel. We were maintaining all the details there and via a tool called Micro Focus ALM. We used to actually own that tool. We used to put all our requirement details into Micro Focus ALM and then switch over from Micro Focus ALM to Jira. We were looking for a tool where we could actually maintain or manage requirements all in one place.
Initially, we struggled with the solution. We didn't just use ARD. We were using a lot of tools from Broadcom. Due to this, initially, there were hiccups in terms of how we would be deploying the tool into the on-premise environment, et cetera. Gradually there was very positive support from Broadcom and the Broadcom team as well. It all sorted out well.
From the company level, we had to make sure that the tool process, all the architectural conformance checks, and integration of security were in place. Those sort of checks we normally do internally before deploying any new tools. All of this took time. That was not the fault of Broadcom. It was just the process side from our end that went long.
Broadcom did get involved with the setup process when we ran into some issues. They were helpful.
I'm not involved in the pricing. I'm more from the architect level and handle the product from a technical perspective. I can't speak to licensing costs.
We did not evaluate anything beforehand. We already had a kind of relationship with Broadcom and, in one of the workshops, they came out with this particular offering.
We're a Broadcom partner.
I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.
Creating models for requirements definition and alignment, starting with high-level requirements definition and expanding models into detailed requirements to test models (manual testing). Also, creating models and analyzing and selecting appropriate test scope/coverage.
Using the test modeling approach helped
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 made test design & writing process more efficient.
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 above features also help to avoid redundancy and use appropriate level models for different levels/phases of testing and/or communicating to different audiences.
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.
Integration with automation is one of the reasons we started to consider moving to this tool from our original tool for implementing test modeling. ARD appears to have better integration with Selenium. It also has the ability to record scripts/flows using Selenium Builder and import them into ARD, which will then create and optimize a model based on that.
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.
Handling loops in models was one of the challenges that we came across in our previous tool. ARD seems to have better control and logic over handling loops in models.
Aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around.
Saving different subsets of test cases, use cases, etc., of a given diagram, for different purposes and providing an easy way to name those subsets.
Trial/evaluations only.
Did not use in largescale capacity so I can't provide a sufficient evaluation.
Did not use in largescale capacity so I can't provide a sufficient evaluation. However, when working with very large models (producing 250,000 scenarios), the ARD performed well and was able to provide meaningful options for test selection in short response time
Did not use actual technical support, but pre-sales engineering support has been outstanding.
We used another test modeling solution. ARD has better integration with automated test scripting and with test data management. We also switched to it because we were looking for ways to make testing more effective and more efficient; reduce defect leakage.
For the standalone option it was easy, since we are familiar with modeling approaches, in general. For the repository option and connection to other tools, it required more work (as any integration would).
Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility.
ADPART from Cognizant and Eggplant AI, part of Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence suite from TestPlant.
It is important to ensure that people first understand modeling concepts and the organization's defined modeling best practices before jumping into tool implementation.
It is critical to get management support, as for some people test modeling is a very new way of thinking and they would find many reasons to push back.
Check CA's videos on modeling available on CA's Youtube channel, before starting to implement the tool itself.
Our primary use case for this tool is designing our manual test cases.
CA ARD is a shift-left tool for us, toward BA, business analysts, where we actually create our requirements. We use it for creating our test cases and QC. Once we get the requirements from a client, we design our flowcharts in CA ARD and then it automatically creates our test cases and QC, because there's an integration in between CA ARD and QC.
We used to provide RTMs to the technical team or the testing team, but now, CA ARD is an extra helping hand. We can provide the exact scope of testing or development to the technical team. That enhances things at the organizational level.
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. That is something we can actually do from CA ARD.
We are using many tools in our projects, like Tosca, but CA ARD is a very closed tool. It 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.
Although there are many integrations which are already available, like Jenkins for automatic performance testing, where we can actually build batches and all, still, there's room for improvement here which the CA ARD team can work on.
In terms of designing, it is very stable, but we are still exploring automation. We just started using the automation feature of ARD.
The initial setup depends on the kind of scenario you are working on. But I found it straightforward. I took about one-and-a-half weeks to study the tool and I'm fine working on it.
Deployment for our clients takes around 30 minutes. It's relatively quick. It generally takes one to two people for deployment. Once the system is up and running it takes two or three people to maintain it.
We have four to five people using the solution. We have an automation team of around 11 people. About half the team is using this tool.
I have to become more familiar with the automation part of CA ARD, and then maybe I'll come to the point of saying that it is a good tool which enables you to take your automation, the testing and development, from deployment and designing of your test case, to pushing them into your testing module - whatever tool you are using; that it is an end-to-end solution.
I would rate this solution at six out of ten. I'm working on Tosca, which is also an end-to-end solution for testing, and I see Tosca as a better option to use, except that Tosca is very costly compared to CA ARD. There are other tools as well, like RPA for process automation. CA ARD is lagging in competing with these tools. As an automation tool, it might not be the strongest.
I work in the insurance and tax domains. The purpose of my using the tool is for user story creation and to have a traceability matrix for our development team and testing team.
The team I am working with was never into Agile before. We have a daily scrum-call and before that, we have to define all the tasks that we are going to work on for a number of sprints. For example, there is a Product Increment Planning meeting where we put all the user requirements into the product backlog. Then we put them back to the respective sprints.
A product increment consists of about five iterations, or five sprints. And we pull each of these backlog items to these particular sprints or iterations, so that it is easy for the development team to pick up, based on the priority. The backlog is set, and it is pulled into particular sprints, based on business priority.
So it helps the development team to take up and finish tasks within the required timeframe. It helps in productivity, traceability, and saves time.
In the case of a big epic, we are able to create it. Then, based on backlog creation, we will be able to create the user stories under that particular feature.
Also, defects can be traced in the solution.
The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them. Overall, it would be nice, from the user-interface point of view, for them to improve it.
In terms of testing or defects, we are able to track it currently, based on each task. But if the testing team could have different access rights, that would really help.
The stability is very nice. Up until now we haven't faced any issues.
The scalability is good because access can be provided to multiple teams.
This is our first such solution.
The initial setup is straightforward. It usually takes two people to deploy. They work as administrators or on the development team. There will be one or two administrators on the client's side to maintain it.
I have seen ROI from implementing this solution in different organizations which I worked with. The return on investment was very good because it is less costly when compared to other tools on the market. For our current project, it might have saved some $2,000 to $3,000.
There are other tools in the market and our organization was using something, but I don't remember the name of the tool.
For us, the process of implementing it starts with getting in touch with one of our internal teams and giving a business case for why we are going to use this tool and what the users' rights will be: for example, edit or delete or whatever functionalities we require. They will register us for the solution. Once this is completed, it will trigger an email so we can start using the tool. First, we create the backlog.
I work on it from a business analyst perspective and I help the project management team to understand what all the backlogs are that we are maintaining for the upcoming versions. As a business analyst, I note the requirements for the respective backlogs, based on business priorities. Then we pull them into the particular sprints. It will then move to the development team to start looking at each of the user stories. They will divide these user stories into particular, technical tasks.
From the testing team point of view, they create, under the same user story, their tasks and start giving their descriptions, including the defects.
Once it is completed, we have a UAT done and we update the status of each of these user stories as completed, or in progress, whichever is applicable.
Deployment depends on the complexity of the application.
We have 25 to 30 people using it in the current project. In my previous organizations, the same tool was used by more than 125 to 130 people. There are different types of users. Business people are also involved, as well as technical testing people, project managers, etc. Different stakeholders are involved.
We are implementing it in many projects now. It was not being used as much, in practice, in the organization where I am working, but we are now scaling it up to multiple teams, so that everyone will get the benefits. To scale up to different teams may take another year. There are different service lines in the organization and each of them has to adopt this technology. They are slowly picking it up.
We are trying to create models, then get the maximum number of test coverage by getting the minimum number of tests. That is what we are looking for: Getting the minimum amount of test cases which provide the maximum coverage. We want to test the minimum amount of cases.
As of now, we do not have a tool which can tell us this. We might end up overtesting, but we have no way of knowing. For this purpose, we use other tools as well, to show how well it integrates and contributes to the continuous testing process.
We are trying to establish a process. As of now, we have not come to a point where we are only using ARD with other tools. We are trying to find better ways of how to use it. We have just done a type of PoC, where we have some model and created a number of test cases, which gives us an idea of the test cases to be executed afterward. We wanted to use it digitally, in practice, but what we see is data integration points. This does not give us the flexibility of ramming the test with multiple sets of data at one time. Therefore, we are just trying to look into the aspect where it gives us more flexibility in terms of integration and using it in our continuous process.
Optimization is something which I like in the tool. It gives me an idea of what are the minimum number of cases which I can execute in order to complete my testing.
I like the optimization, because it gives me an idea of the minimum number of test cases. It also gives me an idea of coverage.
The integrations with other tools is very important for our continuous testing process.
I was looking into some pre-release testing on the integrations with CA Application Test, and when I exposed the test directly to App Test, I found that the tests which we directly exposed have one set of data that we can directly expose and run in App Test. Once we run it, we come to know whether the test has passed or failed. Currently, when we are running a test in App Test, we are running it with TDM data, so it helps my tests run with multiple sets of data at once. I feel that it is a more efficient process if we are running a test with different sets of TDM data. However, if you take data directly from ARD, it is one test with one set of data, which is getting executed. Therefore, data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test.
Also, 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 would like an enhancement or something from the tool that I can use in a more automated way than a manual process.
It is quite a stable product.
We are fine in terms of scalability.
The support team is good.
I have not previously used a test case design tool.
The company was just using ALM for our test management: creating manual test cases, designing and planning, requirements, and traceability.
The initial setup was quite straightforward.
I would advise to use this product, because it is a good way to create models and establish model-based process testing. The optimization technique with integrations is seamless, and a very good tool.
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 optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage.
We use CA Agile Requirements Designer for model-based testing, and also automate test case creation and generate test automation scripts.
It reduced the effort required for test case creation, test case review, automation script generation, and maintenance of test cases and automation scripts. We were able to reduce our QA team size by 50 percent. It helped resources without programming knowledge to create automation scripts. It enabled in-sprint automation and implement continuous testing.
It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing. Application level SMEs without scripting knowledge were able to create automation scripts. Integration with Test Data Manager, reduced the effort required in synthetic data generation and finding the test data from a master testbed quickly. Integration with Rally helped us to upload test cases quickly.
The product reduces the efforts required in documenting requirements, test case creation, and automation script generation. Test Case Review was quick and easy, by visually going over the flow. We were able to standardize the automation scripts.
ARD is constantly improving, and CA is always working on adding new features. Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script.
No stability issues.
No scalability issues.
Technical support is excellent. I have been using this product for nearly four years. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered.
We sought out this solution because we needed to automate our regression test cases. Application SMEs without automation scripting experience were our main challenge.
When we got introduced to ARD, we did a PoC and realized the benefits. Then, we implemented ARD in our projects.
The initial setup was straightforward. Installation was quick. Then, we needed to activate the license by following the instruction provided.
This tool reduces the cost associated with test cases, automation script generation, and maintenance costs. So go for it. It will bring great savings to your organisation.
We did not evaluate any other solutions.
If you are looking to implement model-based testing, reduce the effort required for documenting the requirements, test case creation, automation script generation, maintenance of test cases, and automation scripts, then go for it. It will bring great savings to your organisation.
I think it 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. And a lot of people - and I agree with that - like the visual aspect of the modeling.
The modeling, without question. The modeling is a game-changer.
I think it's already coming, but more automation aspects involved with it. 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.
I have been playing with the solution for a short timeframe, two weeks. So far very good. I haven't tested the scalability of the solution, but so far, I would say very good.
I have not engaged technical support. As far as I have heard from other customers, the technical support is great.
We're using BPT from HPE ALM. It was not from me, the direction, but I think my leadership saw the opportunity of shifting to the model-based testing, and to have a more connected way to work the requirements. So that was the driving force to the shift.
It's a client install and we got it packaged very well within our company. So, I didn't have any problems at all with installing the client.
I would say it's an eight out of 10. It's a great solution for its purpose, but I think there are going to be more things which need to be added to it to make it a full-scale solution for the problem that we're dealing with. So, I give it an eight, but a strong eight.
