Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs Polarion Requirements comparison

Broadcom and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. Broadcom is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0, while Siemens is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.0. Broadcom holds a 3.4% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 16.0% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of Broadcom users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

Broadcom Agile Requirements...

Read 21 Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer reviews

1,695 Views
746 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 15 Polarion Requirements reviews

3,369 Views
3,369 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Broadcom Agile Requirements...

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Polarion Requirements and Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer are competing products in requirements management. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer seems to hold an upper hand, largely due to its feature set that justifies its cost.

Features: Polarion Requirements offers robust traceability and collaboration capabilities, supporting end-to-end traceability, real-time collaboration, and document-based work items. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer focuses on automation and speed, enabling quick test case generation with its model-based approach, enhancing productivity in agile settings. Both products serve different functionalities, with Polarion focusing on comprehensive requirements tracking and Broadcom emphasizing agile test management and automation.

Room for Improvement: Polarion Requirements could benefit from more intuitive user interface enhancements and expanded flexibility in API integrations. Additionally, improvements in customization options for complex workflows would be valuable. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer might improve by streamlining its initial setup process and refining data integration capabilities. Enhancements in global support adaptability could also be beneficial, addressing specific regional needs more efficiently.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Polarion Requirements provides flexible deployment options, adaptable to both on-premise and cloud preferences, with a reputation for responsive customer service aiding smooth integration. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer relies on cloud deployment, supporting rapid scaling and integration, appealing to agile environments focusing on fast-paced deployment cycles. Polarion might be more appealing to those needing traditional support models, whereas Broadcom suits environments seeking agility.

Pricing and ROI: Polarion Requirements is noted for cost-effectiveness, offering significant ROI with its comprehensive feature set at a competitive price. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer, although involving a higher initial investment, promises strong ROI through agility and automation features, balancing its cost over time. Decisions rest on immediate cost savings with Polarion versus long-term benefits offered by Broadcom's automation capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 892,943 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 Application Requirements Management

6th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (8th), Test Design Automation (3rd)

Polarion Requirements

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

4th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is 3.4%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 16.0%, up from 14.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Polarion Requirements	16.0%
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer	3.4%
Other	80.6%

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman

Technical Solution Architect 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

reviewer2798628

Project Manager at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees

Comprehensive traceability has supported regulated projects but review workflows still need improvement

The ability to manage requirements through the whole project life is somewhat unclear. We are not using the ability to track all requirements through the whole project life for analytics very much. We have a way to easily find all the requirements of a complex product, even if they are spread over different Polarion Requirements projects. We do not have any issues in that area, but we are not really using the analytics part of Polarion Requirements. I am satisfied with the integration capabilities for Polarion Requirements, but it depends. We encountered a lot of issues with the integration with Enterprise Architect. We were in contact with Lemon Tree company, which provides support for that integration, but we eventually decided to develop our own plugins for Polarion Requirements. That is unfortunate, but we are not really happy with their implementation. There are things that are going really well, but alongside this, there are also things that are not yet implemented, which is quite annoying for us. The main point for improvement or lack of functions that I would like to address in Polarion Requirements is really about the review process, which is a bit too limited. When we are developing complex products, we have to review big life documents or a set of work items, but there are a lot of issues with that. For example, very simple things: if you select a word and not a space in the document, you are not able to add comments, and it is not user-friendly. If you know that you have to put the cursor and not select the word, that is something people can live with, but for newcomers, it is frustrating. They will ask questions such as 'I cannot add a comment about this word' or for a selection of text. That is something annoying. You can do that in a simple Word document, but not in Polarion Requirements. Also, the ability to review a table or generated dynamic content is not possible in Polarion Requirements. For example, if you generate automatically a list of tests, you cannot click on the second one; you can only click at the beginning of the generated sections. 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 review process is the main pain point for me, especially since we are in a highly regulated environment where reviews are crucial for us.

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

"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."

"I like the way Broadcom ARD inserts test cases in execution mode."

"We are satisfied with the solution, and in terms of the way the UI and the response of the tool are set up, including the hierarchy breakdown of the requirements and how they appear on the tool, it is great."

"By using ARD it allowed junior developers to write code because they had all of the requirements in the business flow."

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

"Technical support is excellent. They provide solutions quickly for issues encountered."

"We deliver test cases ten times faster and automate in hours vs. days or weeks."

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer pros

"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."

"We worked with the web interface."

"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."

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

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."

"We use the product to review and assign requirements we receive from customers."

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

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"I think it's already coming, but more automation aspects involved with it. There is a tab for Automation, but I think it's not robust."

"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."

"CA ARD is lagging in competing with these tools."

"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."

"It could be quicker to use. Because we do so many things with it, sometimes it takes a long time to create a flow."

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer cons

"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."

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

"In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for engineers to understand how it works, as many features are not very easily understandable for end-users."

"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."

"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."

"The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult."

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

"The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy."

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"The pricing model is based on how many people are using it. We have an annual license. There are not any additional costs."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

"The product's price is high."

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

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

892,943 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Construction Company

Computer Software Company

Transportation Company

Manufacturing Company

26%

Healthcare Company

Computer Software Company

Construction 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	8
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	5

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 Polarion Requirements?

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 work...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polarion Requirements?

I purchased Polarion Requirements directly from Siemens Benelux, but if you have any ideas to get a license at a better price, we are quite interested in discussing that.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM DOORS vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 10% of the time

Blueprint Storyteller vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 8% of the time

Jira vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 6% of the time

Helix ALM vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 6% of the time

Inflectra SpiraTest vs Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

Compared 6% of the time

More Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer Competitors

IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 68% of the time

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 9% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 6% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 6% of the time

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 1% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer

May 2026

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer report

Download Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

April 2026

Download Polarion Requirements product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

Overview

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer offers clarity in requirements, reducing post-implementation clarifications. It features an intuitive UI, seamless requirement navigation, and robust model-based testing, efficiently connecting requirements to test cases.

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer automates the creation of test cases directly from requirements, streamlining quality assurance processes. Its intuitive design and seamless navigation meet users' needs while simplifying the transition from script-based to model-based testing. With strong integration capabilities, it supports continuous development, efficiently managing test data and automating workflows. Despite some usability challenges with large models and a need for better security features, the tool's ability to enhance test coverage while minimizing test cases delivers compelling value. It also offers integration with tools like Jira and ALM, ensuring smooth alignment with existing systems, though improvements in integration with testing engines and comprehensive documentation for automation frameworks would be beneficial.

What are the key features of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer?

Model-Based Testing: Facilitates the creation of test cases directly from models.
Test Case Automation: Automatically generates test cases, reducing manual effort.
Integration with Tools: Seamlessly integrates with Jira, ALM, and more.
Workflow Automation: Streamlines processes by automating workflows and management of test data.
Test Data Management: Efficient test data handling ensures streamlined testing processes.

What should users look for in reviews of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer?

Time Efficiency: Significantly reduces time spent on test case creation.
Traceability: Provides clear traceability from requirements to test cases.
Support: Excellent customer support ensures user satisfaction.
Simplified Onboarding: Reduces learning curves for new team members.
Comprehensive Coverage: Ensures maximum test coverage with minimal cases required.

In industries like software development and IT, Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is implemented to enhance the transition from script-based to model-based testing, optimizing requirements validation and simplifying manual test design. By integrating with existing development tools, it supports continuous development cycles effectively.

Broadcom

Polarion Requirements is a dynamic tool offering traceability and collaboration for managing project requirements. It is configurable with diverse integrations, supporting documentation and version control, making it suitable for technology-driven industries.

Polarion Requirements provides comprehensive management of product requirements with robust traceability and collaboration capabilities. Teams can efficiently manage documentation and version histories with real-time collaboration and API integrations. Its open architecture supports customization and workflows, allowing seamless integration with Jira and Teamcenter. Users benefit from flexibility in file support, powerful reporting, and user-friendly functionalities. Despite these strengths, there are areas for improvement, including license policy transparency and ease of use for non-IT professionals. Improved integration speed, workflow flexibility, and data management, along with better documentation, would enhance its value.

What are the key features of Polarion Requirements?

Traceability: Offers comprehensive link and track capabilities for requirements.
API Integration: Facilitates seamless connection with software tools.
Real-Time Collaboration: Enables teamwork on documents with live updates.
Customizable Workflows: Tailors process flows to user needs.
Electronic Signatures: Provides secure verification for documents.

What benefits can be expected from Polarion Requirements?

Improved Management: Streamlines requirement tracking and documentation.
Increased Efficiency: Allows faster communication and project execution.
Enhanced Compliance: Supports regulated industry standards.
Better Collaboration: Fosters team communication and coordination.

In industries like automotive and aerospace, Polarion Requirements is implemented to manage and track custom product specifications. It helps capture requirements for deliverables, streamline technical standards, and trace customer needs. Teams use LiveDocs and live reports for end-to-end traceability, which supports comprehensive systems engineering and industrial servicing in highly regulated sectors.

Siemens

Sample Customers

Williams, Rabobank

NetSuite, Ottobock, Zumtobel Group, Kªster Automotive GmbH, Sirona Dental Systems, LifeWatch, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PHOENIX CONTACT Electronics GmbH, Metso Corporation

Buyer's Guide

Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2026

Free Report: Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements

Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

892,943 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer vs. Polarion Requirements report.

See our list of best Application Requirements Management vendors.

We monitor all Application Requirements Management 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.