We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Parasoft Development Testing Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Requirements Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The next-generation features are good."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements."
"It is a mature product that is stable."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing."
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"It could be more user-friendly. It's not a beautiful tool. The user interface is gray. It has only lists inside, and it's horrible when you want to add tables. It's tough to add tables and manage them. It also becomes difficult when you want to add images."
"One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 9th in Application Requirements Management with 4 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes " Offers ability to automate tasks and to track changes within documents and compare different versions of requirements but modeling capabilities could benefit from a web-based tool ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, whereas Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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.