We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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 modeling is a game-changer."
"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"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."
"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."
"The optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage."
"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."
"It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing."
"It takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"Within Quality Center, you have the dashboard where you can monitor your progress over different entities. You can build your own SQL query segments, and all that data is there in the system, then you can make a dashboard report."
"It allows us to easily make linkage and dependencies, with plenty of integrations."
"I love to use this solution with single projects. It has helped our productivity. With the metrics that I receive, I can put them onto the management model so I can see them there. It has reduced our time for project management and controls by 20 percent."
"By standardizing our template, we publish reports at the business unit level."
"Lab Management is a valuable feature, because you have a 360 view."
"The test-case repository and linkage through to regression requirements will absolutely be a key component for us. We haven't got it yet, but when we've got an enterprise regression suite, that will be a key deliverable for them. We will be able to have all of the regression suite in one place, linked to the right requirements."
"It's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions."
"Reporting was the main thing because, at my level, I was looking for a picture of exactly what the coverage was, which areas were tested, and where the gaps were. The reporting also allowed me to see test planning and test cases across the landscape."
"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 improve security and authentication."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The downside is that the Quality Center's only been available on Windows for years, but not on Mac."
"One drawback is that ALM only launches with the IE browser. It is not supporting the latest in Chrome... It should be launched for all of the latest browsers."
"It's not intuitive in that way, which has always been a problem, especially with business users."
"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"Client-side ActiveX with patch upgrades"
"It is nice, but it does have some weaknesses. It's a bit hard to go back and change the requirement tool after setup."
"There needs to be improvement in the requirement samples. At the moment, they are very basic."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 1st in Test Management Tools with 197 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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 OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center 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.
