We performed a comparison between 3SL Cradle and IBM Rational DOORS 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."3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"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 is the management verification and login."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"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."
"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"Not all Rational Team Concert operations are available from the web client. Certain operations, like creating streams or components, still require using the desktop application. They're not accessible through the web interface. And in my opinion, this limitation should be removed."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it."
"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
3SL Cradle is ranked 11th in Application Requirements Management with 3 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews. 3SL Cradle is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of 3SL Cradle writes "Flexible solution that manages all your needs". On the other hand, 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 ". 3SL Cradle is most compared with Jira, whereas IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and OpenText Dimensions RM. See our 3SL Cradle vs. IBM Rational DOORS 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.