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

IBM DOORS vs Jira vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 33.2%, down from 34.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Jira is 15.4%, down from 16.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 14.7%, down from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

UweSeufert - PeerSpot reviewer
Old but capable of storing, organizing, and exchanging requirements
I use IBM DOORS because my customer wants it for managing their requirements IBM DOORS is a tool from the 20th century. It is very old but capable of storing, organizing, and exchanging requirements. It helps to manage requirements efficiently, which significantly improves the way requirements…
Grigoriy Kneller - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful for agile management and project tracking
Setting up on Windows is very easy, while on Linux, it's a bit more complicated. I would rate it around a seven out of ten. It is possible to deploy it both on the cloud and on-premises. The deployment duration varied based on whether it was on the cloud or a server. If it was on the cloud, it took slightly less time, while installing it on a server took anywhere from ten minutes to an hour.
Michael Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful for Application Lifecycle Management and has good collaboration 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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I really enjoyed the API."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"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."
"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"It is a stable solution."
"The ability to design your own workflows is a great feature."
"The integration of other open source tools with Jira is very useful. It allows us to create documents and transcriptions, making it versatile beyond software development."
"It was easy to use. The consultants that we had on board were familiar with it. So, obviously, having a community that had used it before or was familiar with it was a positive thing."
"You no longer need to email people. You can mention them right in Jira and have conversations there."
"The integration between Confluence and Jira, along with Jira's ticketing system, is a valuable feature the product offers its users."
"I have found the most valuable features of Jira to be ticketing, life cycle workflow, definition, and creation. Many of the features are useful."
"The features on offer are great. It has everything we need."
"The dashboards are useful."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We worked with the web interface."
"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."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
 

Cons

"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"It used to be very clunky."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"The images are not clear. We have to use them as OLE objects. And in the testing part, I'm not sure how to link it with it. This is my main concern."
"We would like to see the integration of a lite-version of Confluence, just to manage some of the templates and documents."
"Sometimes the solution doesn't communicate well with other platforms. It's quite difficult to integrate things and make the data flow from A to B, to Jira, and then back to other areas."
"The CACD solutions on JIRA has some plugins, but they are not easily understandable or workable."
"Sometimes the screens can be a bit too busy. There's often a lot of information on the screen. I think paring things down and applying some UX improvements might enhance the look and feel of the interface."
"What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product."
"The sprint-related graphics need to be improved."
"They could improve the solution by having a multiple project dashboard to be able to manage many projects KPI's at once, this would really be helpful."
"I would like to see more robust release management within the tool."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"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."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"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."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"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

"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."
"I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."
"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."
"It's expensive."
"I don't personally know what the numbers are. I just know that one of the reasons we've limited it to three seats is a function of cost."
"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."
"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"We used to be on a perpetual license provided by our clients."
"The price is quite competitive."
"The tool is expensive."
"We currently have ten users, and it is free for ten users."
"We had a perpetual license but have changed to a subscription."
"I don't feel that price is an issue."
"The tool's pricing is reasonable."
"The pricing is much higher than other similar solutions available in the market, and as such, the vendor should think about a price reduction to make this product more affordable."
"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."
"The product's price is high."
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
850,076 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
27%
Computer Software Company
9%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Government
6%
Educational Organization
50%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS?
The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at differen...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS?
Over the years, the first version cost something around 5800 euros.
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS?
Compared to today, DOORS' competitors also excel in this discipline. Yet the price is too high. It's often not as gen...
Is Jira better or would you go with Micro Focus ALM Octane?
Hi Netanya, Basically , it all depends on the use cases for your environment and the business needs. Hope the below d...
Which is better - Jira or Microsoft Azure DevOps?
Jira is a great centralized tool for just about everything, from local team management to keeping track of products a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Jira?
We operate under a nonlimited license with Jira, allowing a number of users to access it with a single enterprise lic...
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-l...
What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?
In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for ...
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS
Jira Software
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
Square, Nasa, eBay, Cisco, SalesForce, Adobe, BNP Paribas, BMW and LinkedIn, Pfizer, Citi.
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, Atlassian, Siemens and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: April 2025.
850,076 professionals have used our research since 2012.