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 7.9. IBM holds a 9.2% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 14.4% 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

3,217 Views
3,217 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 14 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,497 Views
2,497 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS Next

Polarion Requirements

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.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 864,053 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

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 9.2%, up from 8.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 14.4%, down from 15.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

Roger Trackwell

System Engineering Manager at a wholesaler/distributor with 10,001+ employees

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

Principal Instrument and Control at Petronas

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

"The usability of IBM DOORS Next is very good, and the features are very good."

"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."

"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."

"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."

"There are many good features with DOORS. The solution has a concept of streams and baselines, as well as a concept of components. A component is a subproject inside a project."

"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."

"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."

"The solution has easy operation, is user-friendly, easily understood, and has better tracking for requirement management."

More IBM DOORS Next pros

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

"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."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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

"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."

"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."

"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."

"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."

"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."

"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."

"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."

"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."

More IBM DOORS Next cons

"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."

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

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

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

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros."

"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."

"The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."

"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."

"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."

"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."

"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."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

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

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

864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

23%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

10%

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 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?

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM DOORS vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 38% of the time

Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 20% of the time

Jira vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 16% of the time

3SL Cradle vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 5% of the time

Helix ALM vs IBM DOORS Next

Compared 3% of the time

More IBM DOORS Next Competitors

IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 56% of the time

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 19% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 10% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 1% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS Next

July 2025

Download IBM DOORS Next product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

July 2025

Download 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

July 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: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

864,053 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.