Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs Tricentis qTest comparison

Broadcom and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. Broadcom is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0, while Tricentis is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3. Broadcom holds a 3.2% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 14.6% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of Broadcom users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

Broadcom Agile Requirements...

Read 21 Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer reviews

695 Views
361 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 18 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,852 Views
1,333 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Broadcom Agile Requirements...

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Tricentis qTest and Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer are prominent tools in the software development lifecycle. Tricentis qTest has the upper hand for ease of use and testing features, while Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer excels in requirements management and modeling for complex projects.

Features: Tricentis qTest offers intuitive test management, seamless integration with other tools, and strong reporting functionalities. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer provides advanced modeling, requirements traceability, and automation capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis qTest could benefit from enhanced performance and additional integration options. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer needs a more intuitive interface and simplified navigation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis qTest scores well for ease of deployment, with a straightforward setup process and reliable customer support. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer's deployment is more complex, but its customer service is highly regarded for technical expertise.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis qTest users report satisfactory pricing and good ROI, especially for small to midsize projects. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is more expensive, justified by its extensive feature set and higher ROI for large-scale implementations.

To learn more, read our detailed Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,370 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Broadcom Agile Requirements...

Ranking in Test Management Tools

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Requirements Management (7th), Test Design Automation (3rd)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is 3.2%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.6%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis qTest	14.6%
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer	3.2%
Other	82.2%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman

Senior Operation Engineer at Vodafone

Integration capabilities enhance testing and workflow automation

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.

Read full review

SamuLehikoinen

Partner Manager at Agiilit Oy

Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features

The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The optimization technique helps in giving us the minimum number of test cases with maximum coverage."

"Defects can be traced in the solution."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The modeling is a game-changer."

"It helped us to move from manual testing to automation testing."

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer pros

"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..."

"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."

"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."

"The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."

"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."

"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."

"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."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

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

"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."

"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."

"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."

"The solution could improve security and authentication."

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

"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."

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer cons

"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."

"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."

"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."

"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 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."

"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."

"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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."

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

"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."

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

"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."

"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."

"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."

"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."

"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."

"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."

"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."

More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

22%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Retailer

11%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Large Enterprise	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	13

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for 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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer?

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...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer?

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 t...

See all answers

What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?

The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?

Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looki...

See all answers

Comparisons

Blueprint Storyteller vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 37% of the time

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 24% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 21% of the time

IBM DOORS vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 19% of the time

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 34% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 25% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 14% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 7% of the time

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 5% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

September 2025

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer report

Download Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

August 2025

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

Grid Tools Agile Designer, CA ARD, CA Agile Requirements Designer

qTest

Overview

CA Agile Requirements Designer is an end-to-end requirements gathering, test automation and test case design tool which drastically reduces manual testing effort and enables organizations to deliver quality software to market earlier and at less cost. The optimal set of manual or automated tests can be derived automatically from requirements modeled as unambiguous flowcharts and are linked to the right data and expected results. These tests are updated automatically when the requirements change, allowing organizations to deliver quality software which reflects changing user needs.

Broadcom

Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

Williams, Rabobank

McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest

September 2025

Free Report: Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.