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 8.1. IBM holds a 34.7% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.6% 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

8,909 Views
5,943 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 13 Polarion Requirements reviews

3,072 Views
2,598 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Room for Improvement: IBM DOORS users often point out its outdated interface, complex scripting, and desire for smoother third-party tool integrations.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: October 2024).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 816,406 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 November 2024, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 34.7%, up from 34.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.6%, up from 15.0% 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 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."

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

"It's a very interesting tool. I like that it's simple. You have to create your document, add your templates, and have your headings and definitions, and it's done. You must attribute the discipline and fill out the comment field for requirements. It also provides you with unique IDs for each requirement. I like that it never duplicates IDs."

"The program is very stable."

"IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template"

"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."

"It is a mature product that is stable."

"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."

More IBM DOORS pros

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"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."

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

"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."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"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."

"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

"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."

"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."

"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."

"Complexity, performance, openness are the three areas that can be improved. The IBM architecture and specifically Jazz looks more complex. There are a lot of servers. It's quite complicated. The search capabilities lack in IBM Rational DOORS Classic for customers who have a database with a requirement of more than 25,000 records. For example, you can search easily for a module, but it's really difficult to look for keywords through the whole database because all the modules are separated into small components, which makes the search quite complex. This is something that's really annoying because when we want to make an impact analysis, we would like to analyze the product globally. It's quite difficult to manage. The fact that you can interact externally with data makes it complex. The approach is complex and doesn't work as expected. For example, when I tried to experiment with exporting some records, the tool crashed, but I couldn't find out the root cause, that is, whether it happened because of Rational Windows or lack of memory. It was just crashing. Logs weren't very clear. IBM can try to use more recent technology for different aspects and make it easy. They can also provide free integration from DOORS Classic to DOORS. Currently, all the customization in Excel is lost, which makes it very complex. It would be a feature to make new versions compatible with features in the past versions."

"The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it."

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

"One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved."

More IBM DOORS cons

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"

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

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

"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."

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

More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice

"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 product's price is high."

"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."

"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."

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

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

25%

Computer Software Company

13%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

31%

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 26% of the time

Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS

Compared 17% of the time

Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS

Compared 8% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs IBM DOORS

Compared 8% 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 20% 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

November 2024

Download IBM DOORS product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

November 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

October 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: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

816,406 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.