Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

3SL Cradle vs IBM DOORS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

3SL Cradle
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM DOORS
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of 3SL Cradle is 1.3%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM DOORS is 34.7%, up from 34.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Siegmar-Schuenke - PeerSpot reviewer
Flexible solution that manages all your needs
I mainly use 3SL Cradle to manage the requirements from service projects 3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately.  3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities. In the next release, I would like 3SL Cradle to be…
MarioCataldi - PeerSpot reviewer
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
The biggest improvement for me is definitely the ability to use DOORS in a web environment through Rational DOORS Next Generation. Integrating with Rational Team Concert via the web interface has also been beneficial. However, not all Rational Team Concert operations are available from the web client. Certain operations, like creating streams or components, still require using the desktop application. They're not accessible through the web interface. And in my opinion, this limitation should be removed. Creating streams, components, etc. We still need the desktop app for those. DOORS has enabled flexibility in mapping requirements to the software. Tracking changes over time due to team meetings and other factors is important. Additionally, I've been using DOORS Next Generation, the web-based tool, especially in the last year.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"When you install DOORS locally, you have the flexibility to do what you want with the solution. You can add functionality and do many things that you can't do with other tools or do well enough to satisfy your users' requirements."
"It is a stable solution."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
 

Cons

"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."
"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."
"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."
"Enhancing security measures, particularly when handling multiple projects simultaneously, would be beneficial to prevent data loss within DOORS."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions."
"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."
"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."
"I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."
"It's expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Aerospace/Defense Firm
31%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
25%
Computer Software Company
13%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with 3SL Cradle?
The support is consistent globally. However, heavier support is provided in certain locations. Improvement in support is necessary. Assistance is available to acquire information and utilize userna...
What advice do you have for others considering 3SL Cradle?
If you have time to take some courses about 3SL Cradle, it will give you more time in the project to familiarize yourself with Cradle. I recommend it, but you need to do it within a very short time...
What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS?
The price of IBM DOORS depends upon the pricing models and the licenses the user selects. The product, on average, starts at $134/month. IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price.
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS?
IBM DOORS effectively synchronizes with Polarion. But suppose when Polarion is running on Linux and you want to integrate with IBM DOORS on Windows, that is when compatibility issues arise. For the...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Cradle
Rational DOORS
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NASA, In-Depth Engineering Corporation, Avibras
Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
Find out what your peers are saying about 3SL Cradle vs. IBM DOORS and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.