IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."

"The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements."

"It is a mature product that is stable."

"The platform's traceability capabilities are invaluable. They provide a solid foundation for certification processes and manage requirement changes across project lifecycles."

"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."

"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 would say that the best feature of the solution is that since everything is in one place, and if you make any changes, then they are recorded or tracked."

"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."

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

"I like the way this solution is structured."

"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."

"The biggest improvement would be in the transparency we have now. We have very complex products. We make whole systems with difficult and diverse areas such as hardware, software, mechanical and printing, etc. To get the overview of all the requirements into a system, at that sizing, is the main advantage we have in the organization now."

"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."

"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."

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."

"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."

"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."

"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 interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."

"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."

"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."

"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."

"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."

"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."

"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."

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

"The usability of the solution should also be improved."

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

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

"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."

"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."

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"

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

"I don't personally know what the numbers are. I just know that one of the reasons we've limited it to three seats is a function of cost."

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

"IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions."

"The licensing cost is too high."

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

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

"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."

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

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

"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."

"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."

"The product's price is high."