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

IBM DOORS Next vs Jira 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 7.7%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Jira is 11.8%, down from 15.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PTC Integrity Requirements Connector is 3.2%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Jira11.8%
IBM DOORS Next7.7%
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector3.2%
Other77.3%
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.
Akhil Viswam - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Agile workflows have streamlined sprint planning and tracking for faster feature delivery
Jira has a very good interface and it is very easy to manage sprints, tasks, and epics. The main feature is the hierarchy, as features can be converted into epics and topics, allowing bigger tasks to be partitioned into smaller ones. The hierarchy feature in Jira helps the team significantly compared to other tools that have been used, such as Trello, which is mainly useful only for a waterfall model. For modern Agile practices, Jira is the most adapted tool in the industry. Another valuable feature is that Jira APIs have been used for data science projects to analyze tasks and get insights. This has also been very helpful in the project.
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

"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."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The usability of IBM DOORS Next is very good, and the features are very good."
"The power, performance, and accuracy of this tool are excellent according to all clients, even though pricing is not a point of contention."
"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."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"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."
"It handles all of the issues that we need it to do."
"My advice to others looking into using Jira is that it is a very good tool and the best tool in the industry for current Agile methodologies and Scrum methodologies."
"It's really smart how they connected third-party vendors into their own marketplace. You can create and add apps. Anybody can do it."
"The most valuable feature is the feature of assigning. Whenever I have an issue, Jira doesn't stop at just letting me describe the issue. I can also assign the issue to a developer, and the developer gets notified about it. After he is able to work on it, he can update the status and revert back to me through the same platform. It really avoids a lot of communication over email and phone. This the feature that I really like about Jira. I always use Jira with my team."
"In our organization, we use Jira for project management and usually use the Scrum project type. We might adjust the workflows and stages to better suit our needs, but we mostly use the default functionalities it offers to manage our projects."
"The most valuable features of this solution are workflow and reporting."
"We've found the scalability to be good."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"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."
"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."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"I would like to see test execution modules."
"Because I am a developer, I would like integration with Git Source Code Management so that for tickets, we can reference the code where the change has happened and where the issue is. This feature might be there, and I probably haven't discovered it."
"Its UI can be improved a little bit. I know this a business tool and not a commercial tool, but it could be a little bit more interactive like the HP ALM/Quality Center, which provides you the results of graphs and gives you a lot of visual representations. I feel Jira lacks a little bit in this aspect."
"Could be more intuitive."
"Stability is an area of concern and it needs improvement, otherwise, it's a good product."
"Lacks some common building block approaches to certain things."
"End-to-end management from product backlog to test completion could be improved."
"I would love to have more features to make nice documents, like Release Notes or a feature overview, right from JIRA."
"The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"We make use of the solution free of charge."
"The tool's pricing is expensive. The new pricing is indeed quite expensive compared to what it was a few years ago. Last year, when we intended to renew our subscription, we found the pricing considerably higher."
"Jira is expensive and a lot of people are choosing DevOps because they are cheaper, open-source, easy to use, and have basic licenses. Jira should decrease its price to be more competitive."
"For very small companies, if you have less than 10 individuals, it is $10 a year for each of the products. When we were a part of the enterprise and had more than 10 people using it, or before they came up with this solution for small companies, it was $2,500 a year for the license for Jira and Confluence, and I believe something like $600 a year to perpetuate the license. I can't remember if it was $600 or $2,500 annually. It was for up to 25 people at the time, and this was in the early 2000s and mid 2000s."
"It's not very cheap. It's also not very costly. I'd rate it a five out of ten in terms of pricing."
"It is certainly a long-term solution for our company and for previous companies that I have worked for. They have these long-term term licenses, but I'm not sure if they really pay on a yearly basis. They are certainly using it for a really long period and for a lot of users."
"I am not sure about the pricing, but I know its licensing is on a yearly basis."
"I rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. It's paid yearly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
24%
Government
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
35%
Consumer Goods Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
 

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 Business106
Midsize Enterprise56
Large Enterprise150
No data available
 

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 la...
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, wh...
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 c...
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?
Jira itself is fairly priced for the features it provides, but pricing is a bit higher than some alternatives, mostly...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS Next Generation, RDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC
Jira Software
PTC IRC
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Major health insurer
Square, Nasa, eBay, Cisco, SalesForce, Adobe, BNP Paribas, BMW and LinkedIn, Pfizer, Citi.
Cummins, Continental
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Jama and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: January 2026.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.