IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 6, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM DOORS
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 34.8%, down from 35.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.6%, up from 14.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

JK
Jul 15, 2022
Good exporting functions, proven scalability, but technical support needs improvement
There are numerous projects that we are using with IBM Rational DOORS. They are isolated from each other and then we receive requirements from outside sources, load them into DOORS, and use them to do traceability into architectures developed in MagicDraw It has improved our ability to do…
IZ
Jan 15, 2020
Stability is questionable given the high number of timeouts we experience
We are users of the product and I'm a systems engineer. We use the product to review and assign requirements we receive from customers. For now we have around 10 people using the solution. This may be increased in the coming months.  The most valuable feature from my side would be the comparison…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"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 really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template"
"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."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"We worked with the web interface."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"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."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"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."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
"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."
"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."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"
"It's expensive."
"The licensing cost is too high."
"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 think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."
"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."
"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."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
"The product's price is high."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
790,308 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
28%
Computer Software Company
14%
Healthcare Company
8%
Educational Organization
5%
 

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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS?
I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive. It was a little bit expensive.
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS?
The modeling capabilities could benefit from a web-based tool like DOORS Next Generation, integrated with Rhapsody. So, integration between Rhapsody modeling and DOORS in the web tool. Another area...
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
790,308 professionals have used our research since 2012.