Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs Polarion Requirements comparison

"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."

"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."

"The support that we get from Broadcom is great."

"It gives us an idea of creating the visual diagrams, which are quite easy to use. It is helpful in creating our business processes."

"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."

"The modeling is a game-changer."

"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 would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."

"The biggest improvement would be in the transparency we have now. We have very complex products. We make whole systems with difficult and diverse areas such as hardware, software, mechanical and printing, etc. To get the overview of all the requirements into a system, at that sizing, is the main advantage we have in the organization now."

"We can easily customize it because of the web services and open APIs. Also, the APIs are available. We integrated Polarion with one of Siemens' products, Teamcenter, which is especially useful for automotive industries. There is an open API for integration with Jira as well, so for me, customization is a strong point."

"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."

"Polarion Requirements is a really great product despite the limitations I mentioned and the price which is getting more and more expensive."

"In my opinion, Polarion Requirements' most beneficial feature is the ability to manage specifications within a work-like document that functions as a work item. Its collaboration features have worked very well and have been very useful. We can easily exchange information with the testing team, the business, and with DevOps."

"My company mainly utilizes the product for documenting internal standards, guidelines, and requirements. Currently, we're focusing on using it for internal purposes, but the vision is to expand its usage to include contract requirements and tracking functionalities. While we're not there yet, it has proven effective for managing our internal documentation needs."

"We worked with the web interface."

"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."

"Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer could improve the UI. Other solutions have a much better UI. The new UI should have a new modern framework."

"Integration with Agile management tools can be improved, i.e., mainly test case maintenance and linking test cases to the automation script."

"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 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."

"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."

"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."

"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."

"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."

"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."

"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."

"I am somewhat satisfied with Polarion Requirements' functionality, but I feel a lack of certain functions regarding the review, which is a bit too limited."

"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."

"We encountered numerous challenges, such as issues with requirements, project management, timing, and planning. The main problem with Polarion at the outset, I believe, was our limited understanding of the planning phase. During that time, we were more focused on change management related to requirements. Recognizing the importance of planning has been a key realization for us. Another mistake we made was not comprehending the need to document these requirements to manage all the work items effectively. Now, we understand the significance of this documentation. As a result of these insights, we have started to see a growing number of competitors from Polarion in this field. One potential improvement could be enabling Polarion to export work items not just to Microsoft Office but also to other office tools."

"The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult. For different roles, you will need different license models. That seems a little bit difficult for us. Especially when you introduce such a complex system, you want to know the right way is to do licensing. It's not clear what that best way would be. The solution will be here for a long time, and I just think it could be more clear."

"The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user."

"It is less costly when compared to other tools on the market."

"We were able to scale down some resources to basically self-fund our ability to purchase the tool."

"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."

"This tool reduces the cost associated with test cases, automation script generation, and maintenance costs."

"Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility."

"​The cost of the tool was well worth the benefit that we saw on the back-end."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

"The product's price is high."

"It is expensive but not for what it is. It is just the right price for what it is. Its price is also similar to other solutions."

"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."

"The pricing model is flexible. You don't have to pay for the full functionalities. And it's a one-time investment for the licenses. You purchase what you need and then can work with that."

"I believe the cost is subjective. It seems a bit pricey, but it depends on your perspective. To provide some context, I compared the prices with GitLab and Jira. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Jira's prices. However, GitLab costs around 40 euros, and DeepLab, which I recently discovered, also falls in a similar price range. I'm not sure about DeepLab's features or interface improvements, as they might have been implementing requirements management over the past six months. In contrast, Polarion costs around 50 to 60 euros based on the 2021 prices I have. While it may seem a bit expensive, it's worth considering whether the additional investment, perhaps around 68 euros per user, is justified. It might appear costly at first glance, but it's essential to acknowledge that it can greatly streamline your work processes."