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

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

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 October 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 8.9%, up from 7.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.1%, down from 16.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polarion Requirements15.1%
IBM DOORS Next8.9%
Other76.0%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Kapil Raikar - PeerSpot reviewer
Has the capability to extend or add extensions to the data model
The user interface of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation needs to be improved, there is a lot of scope with this. Even though there have been improvements from versions five, six and seven, the UI still has a lot of bugs. There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration. The solution relies on OSLC for integration APIs, but those APIs do not support all the capabilities.
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution has easy operation, is user-friendly, easily understood, and has better tracking for requirement management."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"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 usability of IBM DOORS Next is very good, and the features are very good."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"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 most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"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."
"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."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"We worked with the web interface."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"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."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"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."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"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 usability of the solution should also be improved."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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 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 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
23%
Government
9%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Healthcare Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Transportation Company
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...
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 ...
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...
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.