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."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"It is a stable solution."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation."
"The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"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."
"The user interface for the Change Proposal System could be improved."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."
"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."
3SL Cradle is ranked 11th in Application Requirements Management with 2 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews. 3SL Cradle is rated 9.0, 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.