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 34.7% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.5% 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

8,607 Views
5,816 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 13 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,979 Views
2,535 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

IBM DOORS and Polarion Requirements compete in the requirements management software category. User reviews indicate that while IBM DOORS stands out in support and pricing, Polarion Requirements has an edge due to its comprehensive features which justify the cost.

Features: IBM DOORS is known for robust traceability, advanced linking capabilities, and suitability for complex requirement structures. Polarion Requirements offers integration with other tools, flexibility, and collaborative capabilities suitable for agile environments.

Room for Improvement: IBM DOORS users often point out its outdated interface, complex scripting, and desire for smoother third-party tool integrations. Users of Polarion Requirements note performance issues and the need for optimization in large-scale deployments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM DOORS can be challenging to deploy due to its complex infrastructure setup but receives praise for its reliable customer service. Polarion Requirements provides a straightforward deployment process, though its customer service is sometimes reported to be slower compared to IBM DOORS.

Pricing and ROI: IBM DOORS is perceived as cost-effective with a good ROI for long-term projects needing rigid requirement management. Despite higher setup costs, Polarion Requirements is valued for delivering strong ROI through extensive features and team productivity in fast-paced environments.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 824,053 peers since 2012

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 December 2024, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 34.7%, up from 34.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.5%, 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

JuanCarlos Lopez

Chief Technology Officer at Maval

Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems

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

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."

"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."

"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."

"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."

"The next-generation features are good."

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

"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."

More IBM DOORS pros

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"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."

"We worked with the web interface."

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

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

"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."

"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."

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

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"The software and GUI is very outdated."

"It used to be very clunky."

"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."

"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."

"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."

"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."

"Both the performance and the price could be improved."

"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."

More IBM DOORS cons

"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."

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

"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."

"Its user interface could be more user friendly. In addition, a lot of features are missing for test management. It should have the test case ordering feature."

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

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

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

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"

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

"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."

"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."

"I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."

"It is expensive to onboard additional users."

"It's expensive."

"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."

More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice

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

"The product's price is high."

"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."

"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."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

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

824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

25%

Computer Software Company

11%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

13%

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?

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?

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...

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

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 9% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 8% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 1% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS

December 2024

Download IBM DOORS product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

December 2024

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

December 2024

Free Report: IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

824,053 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.