Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements comparison

IBM and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. IBM is ranked #5 with an average rating of 7.6, while Siemens is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 9.3% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 13.7% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of Siemens users who would recommend it.
IBM DOORS Next
Read 15 IBM DOORS Next reviews
  • 2,966 Views
  • 2,966 Comparison Views
92% willing to recommend
Polarion Requirements
Read 14 Polarion Requirements reviews
  • 2,455 Views
  • 2,455 Comparison Views
78% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Polarion Requirements and IBM DOORS Next compete in the requirements management software market. Polarion holds an advantage in pricing and support, offering a cost-effective solution, while IBM DOORS Next offers a rich feature set that attracts those willing to invest in comprehensive capabilities.

Features: Polarion Requirements offers collaborative features, customizable workflows, and traceability capabilities. IBM DOORS Next provides robust version control and advanced data management, making it ideal for organizations with extensive data needs.

Room for Improvement: Polarion could enhance its data management and version control functionalities. Greater support for high-volume data operations would also be beneficial. IBM DOORS Next might reduce deployment complexity and improve user usability. Simplifying its configuration could aid faster adoption.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Polarion Requirements offers straightforward deployment with swift implementation and effective service support. IBM DOORS Next, while offering comprehensive guidance for deployments, focuses on extensive customization, potentially extending deployment times.

Pricing and ROI: Polarion Requirements is more budget-friendly, ensuring faster ROI with reduced expenses. IBM DOORS Next requires higher upfront costs but delivers long-term value with its robust platform, appealing to enterprises seeking expansive data management and are willing to invest in extra features.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 867,370 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 Next
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
5th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 9.3%, up from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 13.7%, down from 15.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polarion Requirements13.7%
IBM DOORS Next9.3%
Other77.0%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Roger Trackwell - PeerSpot reviewer
An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements
The biggest thing is that it shows cradle to grave traceability between the initial parent requirement and the lowest level, or what we call a CID, a critical item development spec. You can establish your verification plans in DOORS, and then as you get test results, you can put them in DOORS as a link or as a pointer to where that specific test resides on a company database. Then you can also write compliance rationale and add a column for coding, like pass, fail, green, yellow, red, meets, does not meet, partially meets, or whatever scoring criteria you want to use. Like I said, the best thing about it is that it provides you that visibility of your verification, allowing you to know how close you are to your pre-production activities, prototyping, go ahead, or whatever it is.
Read full review
Effendy Mohamed - PeerSpot reviewer
Positive impact on traceability while user interface and setup require improvement
The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor. The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy. Someone who has a good IT background would be able to use it, but a regular person who just knows more or has always been dealing with Microsoft Word might find it difficult to use that system. Users need skills to work with this solution and also need to have some foundation of why those technical integrations and cross-referencing have to be done in such a way through systematization, which makes it difficult and not straightforward through the visibility of the user interface.
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

"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is easier to expand to build a backend with several servers, so you can also use it to scale up to several hundreds of users without major problems."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"The usability of IBM DOORS Next is very good, and the features are very good."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The traceability matrix helps to view things better. It comes with different linking rules."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The solution has easy operation, is user-friendly, easily understood, and has better tracking for requirement management."
More IBM DOORS Next pros
"We worked with the web interface."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"The most beneficial features of Polarion Requirements for traceability include the traceability function and also the historical and matchmaking or cross-referencing, which was very good."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training 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."
More Polarion Requirements pros
 

Cons

"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"When you are in Jira or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
More IBM DOORS Next cons
"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 user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy."
"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."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."
More Polarion Requirements cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."
"You are going to need a beefy server and a fat network pipe to it in order to make DNG and its companion tools work well for users."
"Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros."
"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
"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."
report
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
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
24%
Government
9%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Educational Organization
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The tr...
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
The solution is slightly high in terms of affordability. I give eight points only because the price is a bit high, which is the only problem since I am the purchasing person, but not the technical ...
See all answers
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
We are not interested in integration with lifecycle management tools. If required, we will connect to the local India team for dashboard reporting tools or additional features. I am not an exact us...
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?
The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor. The user configuration had some issues; you need to know al...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

IBM DOORS vs IBM DOORS Next Logo
IBM DOORS vs IBM DOORS Next
Compared 37% of the time
Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS Next Logo
Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS Next
Compared 19% of the time
Jira vs IBM DOORS Next Logo
Jira vs IBM DOORS Next
Compared 15% of the time
3SL Cradle vs IBM DOORS Next Logo
3SL Cradle vs IBM DOORS Next
Compared 5% of the time
Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS Next Logo
Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS Next
Compared 4% of the time
More IBM DOORS Next Competitors
IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements Logo
IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 58% of the time
Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 18% of the time
Jira vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Jira vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 10% of the time
Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 3% of the time
OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements Logo
OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 2% of the time
More Polarion Requirements Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
IBM DOORS Next
September 2025
IBM DOORS Next reportDownload IBM DOORS Next product report
Buyer's Guide
Polarion Requirements
August 2025
Polarion Requirements reportDownload Polarion Requirements product report
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS Next Generation, RDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC
No data available
 

Overview


IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS Next (DOORS Next) is a requirements management (RM) software designed to help organizations manage engineering project requirements throughout the development lifecycle. It offers a central location for capturing, defining, and organizing project requirements, facilitating collaboration among stakeholders like engineers, system designers, and customers. Key features include requirements traceability, version control, and impact analysis. DOORS Next improves efficiency, enhances communication, reduces risks, and aids in better decision-making through clear traceability and version control. Compared to its predecessor, DOORS 9, DOORS Next is a web-based version with a modern interface that integrates with other IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) tools, while DOORS 9 offers a wider range of features in a non-web-based format.


IBM
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.
Siemens
 

Sample Customers

Major health insurer
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 Next vs. Polarion Requirements
September 2025
Free Report: IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our IBM DOORS Next 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.