We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Inflectra SpiraTest 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."It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"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 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."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"We were able to add a step-by-step procedure for someone to follow to assist in testing."
"The user-friendly features are the most valuable. For example, migration of requirements and migration of test cases and the creation of traceability. You have various reports that you need. The plug-ins that are available to connect with the other tools."
"I found Inflectra SpiraTest intuitive enough. It's also easy to learn, so this is what I like about it."
"The reporting functionality helps vendors and technical resources identify bugs and issues that need to be addressed. The simple dashboard-style home page makes training end-user testers simple and straightforward. The actual testing UI is VERY straightforward and very intuitive for the end-users that test the system since very often we pull from business and operational users to help test new systems."
"The ability to reuse test cases already used across projects is the most valuable feature of this solution. We don't need to create new ones."
"Inflectra SpiraTest has a lot of functionality, which is good."
"The features of this product most valuable to me were the test case management and the visual status, by which it was displayed."
"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."
"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 interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"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."
"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 customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"Being able to add scripting for testing can and does save a lot of time. When you are able to just ‘run’ a test case rather than manually add it and run it."
"Two areas that can stand improvement: integration with third party products and making it more intuitive."
"The user interface is slightly complicated and not very consistent. It could be more user friendly."
"The UI for managing test cases, test sets, test runs could be a little more integrated, currently, these feel disjointed at times and confusing. Also, the test steps page needs to display the test steps closer to the top of the UI so as to not have to scroll down to find."
"It should develop integration with JIRA. We have some complexities which caused us not to decide to integrate it with our JIRA, like synchronous data."
"The folder organization in Inflectra SpiraTest could be better, though I cannot comment whether that is structure-related. Most of what I need would probably be in the tool, but as a test manager, I need to be able to create dashboards and reports easily."
"Migrating is not very easy. It depends on the organization, how efficient and effective the decision-making process is. The plug-ins should be easier and more integrated rather than the user trying to integrate the tools which are more popular, like Jira et al."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Inflectra SpiraTest is ranked 9th in Application Requirements Management with 25 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Inflectra SpiraTest is rated 7.4. 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 Inflectra SpiraTest writes "Intuitive enough and easy to learn, but in terms of folder organization, it could be better". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Helix ALM and Jama Connect, whereas Inflectra SpiraTest is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira and Jama Connect. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Inflectra SpiraTest 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.
