IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

"We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation."

"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."

"It is a stable solution."

"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."

"The data logs are ver conveneint."

"The program is very stable."

"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."

"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."

"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"The most beneficial features of Polarion Requirements for traceability include the traceability function and also the historical and matchmaking or cross-referencing, which was very good."

"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."

"We worked with the web interface."

"In my opinion, Polarion Requirements' most beneficial feature is the ability to manage specifications within a work-like document that functions as a work item. Its collaboration features have worked very well and have been very useful. We can easily exchange information with the testing team, the business, and with DevOps."

"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."

"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."

"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 software and GUI is very outdated."

"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."

"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."

"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."

"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."

"Its user interface could be more user friendly. In addition, a lot of features are missing for test management. It should have the test case ordering feature."

"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."

"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."

"The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy."

"In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for engineers to understand how it works, as many features are not very easily understandable for end-users."

"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."

"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"

"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."

"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."

"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."

"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."

"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."

"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."

"I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."

"I believe the cost is subjective. It seems a bit pricey, but it depends on your perspective. To provide some context, I compared the prices with GitLab and Jira. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Jira's prices. However, GitLab costs around 40 euros, and DeepLab, which I recently discovered, also falls in a similar price range. I'm not sure about DeepLab's features or interface improvements, as they might have been implementing requirements management over the past six months. In contrast, Polarion costs around 50 to 60 euros based on the 2021 prices I have. While it may seem a bit expensive, it's worth considering whether the additional investment, perhaps around 68 euros per user, is justified. It might appear costly at first glance, but it's essential to acknowledge that it can greatly streamline your work processes."

"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."

"It is expensive but not for what it is. It is just the right price for what it is. Its price is also similar to other solutions."

"The product's price is high."

"The pricing model is flexible. You don't have to pay for the full functionalities. And it's a one-time investment for the licenses. You purchase what you need and then can work with that."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."