We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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."I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"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."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"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."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The traceability matrix helps to view things better. It comes with different linking rules."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."
"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."
"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"Both the performance and the price could be improved."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"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."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"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."
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8. 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 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". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with Jama Connect, Jira, Polarion Requirements, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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.