We performed a comparison between Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."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 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."
"Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."
"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."
"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 modeling is a game-changer."
"It takes away all the time to construct test cases, so it is all automatic now, but it also levels the playing field."
"Visual Studio Test Pro is super helpful for my Microsoft app work."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"The most valuable feature of Visual Studio Test Professional is its ease of use."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"The most valuable features of Visual Studio Test Professional are the IntelliSense and the ease of adding the NuGet packages."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"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."
"They do not have an engine to house test scripts to really pull together the testing pieces of it."
"Data flexibility is something which I would like to see, along with more integration with App Test."
"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."
"The solution could be more user-friendly. For example, attachments could be icon-based to make it easier for the user to notice them."
"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."
"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 service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"Its UI could be better."
"The documentation is limited."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"The pricing of this solution should be lowered."
"The solution's documentation could be improved because it keeps disappearing from the solution."
"The data flow can be improved."
"Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement."
More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 20 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 5th in Test Management Tools with 46 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Jira, TFS and Sealights, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.
