IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

"The platform's traceability capabilities are invaluable. They provide a solid foundation for certification processes and manage requirement changes across project lifecycles."

"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."

"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."

"It is a mature product that is stable."

"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."

"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."

"It is a stable solution."

"It is very customizable and easy to scale."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"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 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."

"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."

"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."

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

"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."

"Both the performance and the price could be improved."

"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."

"The software and GUI is very outdated."

"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."

"Complexity, performance, openness are the three areas that can be improved. The IBM architecture and specifically Jazz looks more complex. There are a lot of servers. It's quite complicated. The search capabilities lack in IBM Rational DOORS Classic for customers who have a database with a requirement of more than 25,000 records. For example, you can search easily for a module, but it's really difficult to look for keywords through the whole database because all the modules are separated into small components, which makes the search quite complex. This is something that's really annoying because when we want to make an impact analysis, we would like to analyze the product globally. It's quite difficult to manage. The fact that you can interact externally with data makes it complex. The approach is complex and doesn't work as expected. For example, when I tried to experiment with exporting some records, the tool crashed, but I couldn't find out the root cause, that is, whether it happened because of Rational Windows or lack of memory. It was just crashing. Logs weren't very clear. IBM can try to use more recent technology for different aspects and make it easy. They can also provide free integration from DOORS Classic to DOORS. Currently, all the customization in Excel is lost, which makes it very complex. It would be a feature to make new versions compatible with features in the past versions."

"IBM DOORS should cover all engineering functions seamlessly, not just requirement engineering."

"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."

"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."

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

"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."

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

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

"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."

"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."

"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."

"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 would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."

"It is expensive to onboard additional users."

"It's expensive."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."

"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."

"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."

"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."