We compared IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM Rational DOORS is praised for its robust requirements management capabilities, helpful customer service, reasonable pricing, and positive ROI. Users note varying times for setup and deployment. In contrast, Polarion Requirements is highlighted for its comprehensive traceability, advanced collaboration features, responsive customer support, flexible pricing, and impactful ROI. Users mention areas for improvement in user interface, performance, customization, and integration.
Features: IBM Rational DOORS offers robust requirements management capabilities and seamless integration with other tools and systems, enhancing collaboration and communication within teams. On the other hand, Polarion Requirements provides seamless integration, comprehensive traceability, and advanced collaboration capabilities. Users appreciate how easily it connects with various software and development tools, allowing for efficient data exchange and streamlined workflows. Moreover, its robust traceability functionality ensures transparency and accountability, while advanced collaboration features facilitate effective teamwork and communication among stakeholders.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for IBM Rational DOORS is straightforward and hassle-free, with flexible licensing options. On the other hand, Polarion Requirements offers a relatively easy setup process, benefiting from various budget-friendly options and customizable licensing plans., IBM Rational DOORS has proven to deliver a positive ROI with improved efficiency, productivity, collaboration, requirements management, and cost savings. Polarion Requirements offers similar benefits with additional customization options for tailored ROI optimization.
Room for Improvement: Users have pointed out several areas for improvement in both IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements. For IBM Rational DOORS, users suggest enhanced user interface customization options, better data management, and improved integration capabilities. On the other hand, users of Polarion Requirements recommend a more intuitive user interface, improved performance and speed, increased customization options, better integration with other tools, and better documentation and training resources.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback regarding the duration to establish a new tech solution with IBM Rational DOORS varies, with some users completing deployment in three months and setup in a week. In comparison, for Polarion Requirements, some users took three months for deployment and an additional week for setup, but these terms likely refer to the same period., IBM Rational DOORS demonstrates exceptional customer service with professional and knowledgeable support staff, while Polarion Requirements provides top-notch and highly responsive assistance. Both products ensure a smooth and satisfactory experience for customers.
The summary above is based on 17 interviews we conducted recently with IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"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'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."
"When you install DOORS locally, you have the flexibility to do what you want with the solution. You can add functionality and do many things that you can't do with other tools or do well enough to satisfy your users' requirements."
"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."
"It is a mature product that is stable."
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"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 most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"We can easily customize it because of the web services and open APIs. Also, the APIs are available. We integrated Polarion with one of Siemens' products, Teamcenter, which is especially useful for automotive industries. There is an open API for integration with Jira as well, so for me, customization is a strong point."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"My company mainly utilizes the product for documenting internal standards, guidelines, and requirements. Currently, we're focusing on using it for internal purposes, but the vision is to expand its usage to include contract requirements and tracking functionalities. While we're not there yet, it has proven effective for managing our internal documentation needs."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"We worked with the web interface."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Polarion Requirements 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 Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Jira, Helix ALM, Jama Connect, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with Jama Connect, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Helix ALM. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements 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.
