We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Jira based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Jira is the clear winner in this comparison. According to its users, it is very stable and user friendly. Based on reviews, it is more reasonably priced and has better support than Rational DOORS. In addition, Jira has a proven ROI.
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"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."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"The solution is stable."
"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"The most valuable feature is the Burndown Chart to see work that is outstanding."
"The user interface is simple."
"This is our way of communicating with different teams. We are a global company. I am based in San Diego, for example. A lot of the BAs are based in Paris. The development team is based in Minsk. We absolutely need to be in constant communication and on the same page."
"Jira improved our team collaboration by providing visual visibility and transparency. Everyone could see what tasks were being worked on and the progress made. The development team updated task statuses, making tracking progress and planning sprints easy. If there were any impediments or challenges, we addressed them. This process helped us track our progress."
"Jira is a pretty capable product, and a lot of features are valuable. We value being able to set up separate projects and configure teams in them, set up sprints, and manage our sprints with its history tracking. These are all very useful features. It has been a very popular product for our work."
"It's easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature is that it is somewhat flexible."
"I was able to do real-time reports myself without having to wait for data import."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"One of the things that many people complain about is it's hard to manage attributes. For example, tables or figures. This is something that can be improved."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"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."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"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."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"Out-of-the-box reporting is limited. It would be helpful if more customisation was possible."
"Performance is something that can always be improved upon in a feature release. Additionally, it would be a benefit to add Markdown in Jira because sometimes it might be better to describe everything in Markdown because it is a common language structure."
"While it's very powerful, it's very complex sometimes."
"The biggest complaint industry-wide about JIRA is they need to purchase additional extensions, such as reporting automation. If they could provide some additional extensions from the initial purchase it would be a huge benefit."
"From the project management perspective, I would say there are a lot of different issues that could be tweaked. There can be small improvements with traceability, for example."
"We have gone through several version changes and some of those changes have not been intuitive. There was a learning curve and we had some complaints internally about the changes, such as the new interface."
"Sometimes, we create the same bug with two or three different Jira tickets in my company, which leads to duplication, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The automation feature needs to be more user-friendly."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 266 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Jira is rated 8.2. 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 Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jama Connect, Helix ALM, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software, Polarion ALM and TFS. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Jira 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.