IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

IBM and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. IBM is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1, while Siemens is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 34.5% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.2% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 84% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

IBM DOORS

Read 53 IBM DOORS reviews

8,366 Views
5,695 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 13 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,898 Views
2,471 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 2025

IBM DOORS and Polarion Requirements are both leaders in the requirements management software category. While IBM DOORS offers strong customization options, Polarion Requirements edges ahead with its emphasis on collaboration and integration.

Features: IBM DOORS offers extensive customization through its DXL scripting language, allowing tailored solutions for complex requirements management. It excels in traceability and integrates with numerous engineering tools. Polarion Requirements stands out for seamless collaboration and document management, enabled by its strong integration using REST and open APIs, which suits distributed teams well.

Room for Improvement: IBM DOORS faces challenges such as a steep learning curve and complex interfaces, and it encounters integration issues due to its proprietary database engine. It lacks support for agile processes. Polarion Requirements could improve its bulk editing capabilities and user interface to enhance usability. Enhancements in integration and risk management features are also needed for better performance.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM DOORS primarily supports on-premises deployment with some hybrid cloud options. Its customer service has shown varied performance, with criticism directed at response times and advanced feature support. Polarion Requirements offers flexible deployment including public and private cloud options, with customer support generally commended for being responsive and helpful.

Pricing and ROI: IBM DOORS is noted for being expensive, especially with multiple licenses and extensions. The cost is justified for large-scale projects in regulated environments, promising significant ROI. Polarion Requirements offers a flexible pricing model based on user roles, providing a cost-effective solution for complex projects requiring collaborative features. Both promise substantial ROI, yet Polarion's pricing flexibility is beneficial for smaller teams.

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 831,158 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

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

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

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 34.5%, up from 34.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.2%, up from 14.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

MarioCataldi

Senior Consultant Bip - Business Integration Partners at Business Integration Partners

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.

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

"I would say that the best feature of the solution is that since everything is in one place, and if you make any changes, then they are recorded or tracked."

"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."

"IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template"

"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."

"It is very customizable and easy to scale."

"The data logs are ver conveneint."

"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."

"The solution is stable."

More IBM DOORS 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."

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

"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."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."

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

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"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."

"There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."

"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."

"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."

"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."

"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."

"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."

"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."

More IBM DOORS cons

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

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

"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."

"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."

"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 usability of the solution should also be improved."

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

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

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."

"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."

"It is expensive to onboard additional users."

"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."

"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."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"We have to pay for a license. I think it's a one-time payment as my company hasn't notified me about more charges. I don't think it's expensive for large corporations, but it will be costly for an average person."

"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."

More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice

"The product's price is high."

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

"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."

"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 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."

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

831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

26%

Computer Software Company

11%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

13%

Healthcare Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

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

Jira vs IBM DOORS

Compared 27% of the time

Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS

Compared 18% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs IBM DOORS

Compared 8% of the time

Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS

Compared 7% of the time

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs IBM DOORS

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM DOORS Competitors

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 21% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 9% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 9% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 1% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS

January 2025

Download IBM DOORS product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

January 2025

Download Polarion Requirements product report

Also Known As

Rational DOORS

No data available

Learn More

IBM

Siemens

Overview

IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS (DOORS) is a Requirements Management (RM) software designed to help organizations manage engineering project requirements throughout the development lifecycle. It provides a central location for capturing, defining, and organizing project requirements, facilitating communication and collaboration among stakeholders like engineers, system designers, and customers. Key features include requirements traceability, version control, and impact analysis, ensuring effective implementation and testing. DOORS improves efficiency, enhances communication, reduces risks, and supports better decision-making through clear visibility into requirements. Compared to its newer, web-based counterpart DOORS Next, the mature DOORS 9 offers a wider range of features with a traditional user interface but lacks web-based functionality and modern integration with IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) tools.

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.

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt

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 vs. Polarion Requirements

January 2025

Free Report: IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DOORS 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.