No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM DOORS vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM DOORS
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PTC Integrity Requirements ...
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 23.5%, down from 32.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PTC Integrity Requirements Connector is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM DOORS23.5%
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector2.8%
Other73.7%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Amol Dumbre - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Manager at Forvia
Integrated lifecycle management has supported global A‑SPICE projects and custom reporting
I believe the toolchain currently covers all of our requirements. Even for A-SPICE and related requirements, I can add attributes and manage things effectively because the tool is highly customizable. I can continue updating things and managing different processes. The only gap I have identified is in code-level coverage reporting. I have coverage traceability from IBM DOORS through the architecture and design, but I am unable to demonstrate code-level coverage reporting. That reporting capability would be helpful. Testing is covered very well through IBM Test Manager. The traceability to code is something I feel there may be certain gaps in, though I may not be fully aware of all capabilities since my role is different and I primarily receive reports rather than being an end user. Regarding the traceability feature, I am not an end user but rather receive reports from my team, so my perspective is limited.
Sandipan Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
Electronic System Product Specialist at Cummins Inc.
A requirement management tool that provides a good technical support along with stability
I see that when we just define the configuration management part, it is a completely different case. Somehow in our organization or current profile, we are not built to make that linkage between that requirement and the configuration management part. So, if it is making some kind of accountability there or some kind of configuration linkage, then it would be a little bit helpful. The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user. At least for the new commerce may be. If it is possible, they can make it module-wise for the PTC Integrity team. To give along with the PTC channel itself, then it might be a little bit helpful. For example, as in the MATLAB that we are using, users have ample amount of use cases there and resources by which they can explore the learning part also. So, if it is possible for PTC Integrity directly to get that one, it will be helpful for the new users.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Requirements development, and doing everything from functional requirements to system requirements, means we can verify that there are no orphan or childless requirements, which ensure full traceability in a short amount of time using the available tools."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"There are a few other requirements management tools, but none are at this level of solving complex situations."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"Over the years supporting requirements management, I have participated in many trade studies where tools were evaluated, and DOORS won most every time."
"The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements."
"It's a very interesting tool. I like that it's simple. You have to create your document, add your templates, and have your headings and definitions, and it's done. You must attribute the discipline and fill out the comment field for requirements. It also provides you with unique IDs for each requirement. I like that it never duplicates IDs."
"I would say that the best feature of the solution is that since everything is in one place, and if you make any changes, then they are recorded or tracked."
"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."
"The problem is that because the GUI is so bad, you either have to spend a lot of money customizing the interface yourself, or a lot of money on training."
"It is complicated sometimes, such as the logic about updating, moving from one server version to another, and the communication between restricted and non-restricted servers."
"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."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"It used to be very clunky."
"The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."
"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."
"IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions."
"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."
"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."
"We have to pay for a license. I think it's a one-time payment as my company hasn't notified me about more charges. I don't think it's expensive for large corporations, but it will be costly for an average person."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
24%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Construction Company
6%
University
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise38
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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?
I believe the toolchain currently covers all of our requirements. Even for A-SPICE and related requirements, I can add attributes and manage things effectively because the tool is highly customizab...
What is your primary use case for IBM Rational DOORS?
I manage the entire application lifecycle management, which includes requirement management, architecture, and software work products. I use IBM DOORS for requirements, Engineering Workflow Managem...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS
PTC IRC
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
Cummins, Continental
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, IBM, Siemens and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: July 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.