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
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
4th
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 December 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 8.6%, up from 8.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.1%, down from 15.4% 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 Next8.6%
Other76.3%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Juergen Albrecht - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at CCC Systems Engineering Suisse GmbH
Has supported complex industry migrations and helps ensure compliance but needs more intuitive usability for occasional users
It is difficult to explain my opinion on IBM DOORS Next; the usability is not as good as I expected, and it is very complex and complicated. It is not a bad tool if you understand how it works, but from the perspective of engineers who only use IBM DOORS Next approximately several times a month but not permanently, it is not very comfortable or intuitive to use. The implementation, migration, and configuration need more user-friendly usability, perhaps through on-site guidance or intuitive use with push button functions, which might be more comfortable, because at the moment, it looks very complex, and ordinary engineers often mention that they have to work with this tool but would not choose to. Simplifying IBM DOORS Next would not be a bad idea. From my perspective and connections with friends at IBM in Switzerland, I gain access to very good background information that helps me satisfy my clients. However, if I had not had these contacts, I might have felt lost inside the tool chain. I am really satisfied as long as I can get help, but I believe it would be a great benefit if the tool itself offered more intuitive push-button functions and similar enhancements. The pricing of the tool itself does not actually matter because the power, performance, and accuracy of this tool are excellent, and that is not the point of contention. All clients agree that the tool is not bad, but the complexity is an issue since it creates a situation where you feel lost while working with it. The intuitive usability that we learned from Classic DOORS is simply not the same. I understand that the complexity has grown, yet I believe it would not be a bad idea if IBM considered splitting or breaking down IBM DOORS Next into two options or, better yet, developing a modular architecture that suits smaller and mid-sized projects. For larger projects with a lot of subsystems, it makes sense to use the full range of the tool, but for startups or mid-sized companies, it would be beneficial if they could select modules according to their needs. More visible on-site automatic help would be beneficial. For instance, if you need to move something, as you use the mouse cursor, an automatic message could pop up asking what you would like to do so that you can select within that context, and it would automatically perform the task. Modern software development recognizes that this type of modifying usability makes life much easier for users. Many have mentioned that whether it is Rhapsody, DOORS, or IBM DOORS Next, the issue is they work only a few times a month and are not professionals with these tools, which leads them to contact me for assistance. It would not be a bad idea for IBM to make this tool more handy, efficient, and user-friendly since most users do not work full days or even months on these tasks and are not familiar with the complete usability.
Effendy Mohamed - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The power, performance, and accuracy of this tool are excellent according to all clients, even though pricing is not a point of contention."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"IBM DOORS Next is known for its heavy-duty capability, which is especially beneficial in heavily regulated environments facing frequent audits."
"The solution has easy operation, is user-friendly, easily understood, and has better tracking for requirement management."
"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
"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 user."
"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."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"In my opinion, IBM DOORS Next does not have any Agile support, and that is why for requirement analysis, IBM DOORS Next is correct, but for someone who is working in an Agile process, IBM DOORS Next is not the solution because it is not integrated into the Agile working process."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."
"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."
"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."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
23%
Government
9%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Construction Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
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?
It is difficult to explain my opinion on IBM DOORS Next; the usability is not as good as I expected, and it is very complex and complicated. It is not a bad tool if you understand how it works, but...
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: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.