We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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."The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"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."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"The solution is stable."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"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."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"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 is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"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."
"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."
"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 9th in Application Requirements Management with 4 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6. 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 Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, whereas Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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.