We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and PractiTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."The support that we get from Broadcom is great."
"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."
"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."
"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 takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"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."
"Defects can be traced in the solution."
"The optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer could improve the UI. Other solutions have a much better UI. The new UI should have a new modern framework."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"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."
"The solution could improve security and authentication."
"CA ARD 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."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. 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 PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps.
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.
