We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Requirements Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality."
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports."
"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"Not all Rational Team Concert operations are available from the web client. Certain operations, like creating streams or components, still require using the desktop application. They're not accessible through the web interface. And in my opinion, this limitation should be removed."
"It could be more user-friendly. It's not a beautiful tool. The user interface is gray. It has only lists inside, and it's horrible when you want to add tables. It's tough to add tables and manage them. It also becomes difficult when you want to add images."
"One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved."
"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"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."
"It used to be very clunky."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"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."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"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."
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 11 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS writes " Offers ability to automate tasks and to track changes within documents and compare different versions of requirements but modeling capabilities could benefit from a web-based tool ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation writes "An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Helix ALM, Jama Connect and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with Jama Connect, Jira, Polarion Requirements, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation report.
See our list of best Application Requirements Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Requirements Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
