We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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."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."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"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."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"The program is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"It used to be very clunky."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"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 images are not clear. We have to use them as OLE objects. And in the testing part, I'm not sure how to link it with it. This is my main concern."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"It could be more user-friendly. It's not a beautiful tool. The user interface is gray. It has only lists inside, and it's horrible when you want to add tables. It's tough to add tables and manage them. It also becomes difficult when you want to add images."
"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."
"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is ranked 9th in Application Requirements Management with 4 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Parasoft Development Testing Platform is rated 8.6. 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 Parasoft Development Testing Platform writes "Provides 100 percent code coverage, is stable, and scalable". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, whereas Parasoft Development Testing Platform is most compared with Codebeamer. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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.