We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Jama Connect 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 features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is easier to expand to build a backend with several servers, so you can also use it to scale up to several hundreds of users without major problems."
"There are many good features with DOORS. The solution has a concept of streams and baselines, as well as a concept of components. A component is a subproject inside a project."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"Technical support answers fairly quickly compared to others like IBM or Atlassian. They also offer quite a good knowledge base for advanced cases and how to plan it, etc. via videos that they provide. They are quite useful."
"Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"I like Jama Connect because it's easy to use and understand. The widgets are great, and linking is straightforward. The solution is not complex compared to its competitors."
"The most valuable feature is the user-friendly interface."
"You can get full traceability with any other system. It also includes a test module, and you build the traceability matrix incrementally throughout the development process."
"It is good at requirements management and test management."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"When you are in Jira or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet."
"It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"t is rather slow, so the speed of the process and consuming information should be improved. It doesn't have a nice way of viewing information. We would like to see better interfaces for consuming information."
"I believe one of the weak points is the reporting side. You must export inter-readable reports from Jama if you do not use the system as a repository for your design history file. Jama is great if you keep it in Jama, but reporting out requires some customization to get it right."
"The initial setup could be better, it's complicated."
"There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement."
"I think there's room for improvement, especially with the review process. Reviews should be integrated with requirement evaluation instead of being separate from it. The review should not run parallel to the requirement."
"Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects."
"I have inquired about pricing for this solution but have not yet heard anything, so their response time in this regard is something that should be improved."
"The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities."
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews while Jama Connect is ranked 5th in Application Requirements Management with 9 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8, while Jama Connect is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation writes "An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jama Connect writes "Agile, well structured, and has a great review module, which makes the design reviews smooth". IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, Polarion Requirements, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Jama Connect is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Polarion Requirements, Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Polarion ALM. See our IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation vs. Jama Connect 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.