IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements comparison

IBM and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. IBM is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.3, while Siemens is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 8.5% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.1% mindshare. Additionally, 91% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 84% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

IBM DOORS Next

Read 13 IBM DOORS Next reviews

3,570 Views
1,247 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 13 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,716 Views
2,281 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS Next

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Polarion Requirements and IBM DOORS Next compete in the requirements management software market. Polarion holds an advantage in pricing and support, offering a cost-effective solution, while IBM DOORS Next offers a rich feature set that attracts those willing to invest in comprehensive capabilities.

Features: Polarion Requirements offers collaborative features, customizable workflows, and traceability capabilities. IBM DOORS Next provides robust version control and advanced data management, making it ideal for organizations with extensive data needs.

Room for Improvement: Polarion could enhance its data management and version control functionalities. Greater support for high-volume data operations would also be beneficial. IBM DOORS Next might reduce deployment complexity and improve user usability. Simplifying its configuration could aid faster adoption.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Polarion Requirements offers straightforward deployment with swift implementation and effective service support. IBM DOORS Next, while offering comprehensive guidance for deployments, focuses on extensive customization, potentially extending deployment times.

Pricing and ROI: Polarion Requirements is more budget-friendly, ensuring faster ROI with reduced expenses. IBM DOORS Next requires higher upfront costs but delivers long-term value with its robust platform, appealing to enterprises seeking expansive data management and are willing to invest in extra features.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 848,207 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

IBM DOORS Next

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

5th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Polarion Requirements

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

3rd

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 8.5%, up from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.1%, up from 15.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

Roger Trackwell

System Engineering Manager at a wholesaler/distributor with 10,001+ employees

An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements

The biggest thing is that it shows cradle to grave traceability between the initial parent requirement and the lowest level, or what we call a CID, a critical item development spec. You can establish your verification plans in DOORS, and then as you get test results, you can put them in DOORS as a link or as a pointer to where that specific test resides on a company database. Then you can also write compliance rationale and add a column for coding, like pass, fail, green, yellow, red, meets, does not meet, partially meets, or whatever scoring criteria you want to use. Like I said, the best thing about it is that it provides you that visibility of your verification, allowing you to know how close you are to your pre-production activities, prototyping, go ahead, or whatever it is.

Read full review

Michael Sanchez

ALM Change & Deployment at MS Consulting

Useful for Application Lifecycle Management and has good collaboration features

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 worked very well and have been very useful. We can easily exchange information with the testing team, the business, and with DevOps.

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

"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."

"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is easier to expand to build a backend with several servers, so you can also use it to scale up to several hundreds of users without major problems."

"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."

"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."

"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."

"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."

"The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The traceability matrix helps to view things better. It comes with different linking rules."

"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."

More IBM DOORS Next pros

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

"We worked with the web interface."

"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."

"My company mainly utilizes the product for documenting internal standards, guidelines, and requirements. Currently, we're focusing on using it for internal purposes, but the vision is to expand its usage to include contract requirements and tracking functionalities. While we're not there yet, it has proven effective for managing our internal documentation needs."

"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"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."

"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 worked very well and have been very useful. We can easily exchange information with the testing team, the business, and with DevOps."

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."

"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."

"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."

"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."

"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."

"It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult."

"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."

"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."

More IBM DOORS Next cons

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

"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."

"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."

"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."

"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."

"The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult. For different roles, you will need different license models. That seems a little bit difficult for us. Especially when you introduce such a complex system, you want to know the right way is to do licensing. It's not clear what that best way would be. The solution will be here for a long time, and I just think it could be more clear."

"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."

"The usability of the solution should also be improved."

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."

"You are going to need a beefy server and a fat network pipe to it in order to make DNG and its companion tools work well for users."

"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."

"The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."

"Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

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

"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."

"The product's price is high."

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

848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

23%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

12%

Healthcare Company

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?

The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The tr...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?

The pricing is considered unreasonable, and there is speculation that IBM may not be putting much effort into further development, possibly treating it as a cash cow.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?

There is a need for improvement in user experience, as the UI is too complex and outdated. Updates should be more frequent to ensure security and functionality, especially in addressing vulnerabili...

See all answers

What do you like most about Polarion Requirements?

See all answers

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

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

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?

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 under...

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM DOORS vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 36% of the time

Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 21% of the time

Jira vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 17% of the time

3SL Cradle vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 4% of the time

Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 3% of the time

More IBM DOORS Next Competitors

IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 57% of the time

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 21% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 10% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 2% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS Next

April 2025

Download IBM DOORS Next product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

March 2025

Download Polarion Requirements product report

Also Known As

Rational DOORS Next Generation, RDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC

No data available

Overview

IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next (DOORS Next) is a requirements management (RM) software designed to help organizations manage engineering project requirements throughout the development lifecycle. It offers a central location for capturing, defining, and organizing project requirements, facilitating collaboration among stakeholders like engineers, system designers, and customers. Key features include requirements traceability, version control, and impact analysis. DOORS Next improves efficiency, enhances communication, reduces risks, and aids in better decision-making through clear traceability and version control. Compared to its predecessor, DOORS 9, DOORS Next is a web-based version with a modern interface that integrates with other IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) tools, while DOORS 9 offers a wider range of features in a non-web-based format.

IBM

Polarion REQUIREMENTS is designed from the ground for highly effective, transparent and secure collaboration, while teams have the option to work in their familiar environments.

Siemens

Sample Customers

Major health insurer

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

IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2025

Free Report: IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DOORS Next 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.