We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Jira based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Jira is the clear winner in this comparison. According to its users, it is very stable and user friendly. Based on reviews, it is more reasonably priced and has better support than Rational DOORS. In addition, Jira has a proven ROI.
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"It is a mature product that is stable."
"The solution offers up great transparency that makes it possible for everyone inside the departmental organization to see what's happening."
"The solution offers a lot of plugins."
"Jira offers tools for managing projects using Agile methodology. I think it is good to encourage the development team to use Jira, so that the organization benefits from the proper execution of projects on time. Basically, it helps our organization to execute in a better way."
"It allows you to do a lot of stuff, and the functionality is pretty rich. It integrates well with other products, like GitLab, that we are currently intensely using at the company."
"It's easy to use, and it also offers excellent notifications."
"The design of the interface is clean and not too busy visually."
"I have found the most valuable features of Jira to be ticketing, life cycle workflow, definition, and creation. Many of the features are useful."
"Its visual display and ease of use are most valuable."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"It used to be very clunky."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"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."
"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."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"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's been the odd amount of JIRA downtime (not self hosted) and sometimes tickets that can't be accessed."
"In Jira Cloud, integration with Excel is missing. Previously, I could import our Excel files into Jira, and I could also download a big Jira report in the Excel format, but now, it needs to be manipulated after that, which is not good. It looks like they've done that on purpose, but I don't understand the reason for it."
"The solution could improve by having its own tool for quality lifecycle management."
"In Jira, sometimes developers are not getting alerts when Jira is moving out of the SLA to the product development team."
"The way to configure it can definitely be improved. It is very difficult and complex to configure. Its configuration should be simplified."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and include integration with different tools."
"Jira could improve by making the user interface easier to use and the functionality could be better. While we are managing multiple sprints and other elements of the projects, it's very difficult to manage the labels and other aspects."
"A more organized hierarchy is important. Reporting and JQL create issues for me. They do not completely cover the reporting part that I need to report in terms of my capacity to plan. In the same token, there is no record at this very moment to provide me with one export with epics story points, tasks, or issues and their sub-tasks at the same time."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 266 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Jira is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes " 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 ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jama Connect, Helix ALM, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software, Polarion ALM and TFS. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Jira 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.