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.
"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."
"It is a stable solution."
"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 program is very 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."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"The solution has been very stable overall."
"It was very easy to learn Jira. As a scrum master, I run daily stand-ups, and they are run directly from Jira. The feature that I really love in Jira is called Issue Navigator. It allows me to customize how I want to show the user stories within Jira to my squad."
"Powerful features including a good reporting capability."
"The informatics is the most valuable feature. It captures what we need."
"We can cope with processes easily without adapting the tool, but adapting the tool to processes."
"Offers a common language set so we can bring people into projects and get them up and running almost immediately."
"The ordinary user has an interface that is very clear."
"Some of the features that are most important to me of JIRA Agile are the sprint planning, being able to write user stories and being able to use task management."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"The problem is that because the GUI is so bad, you either have to spend a lot of money customizing the interface yourself, or a lot of money on 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."
"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."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"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."
"Users can be confused about how to use this tool as it's very complex."
"The solution could improve by having its own tool for quality lifecycle management."
"The reporting needs to be improved."
"I would like to see more integration available with more tools."
"Reporting is something Jira could work on. The reporting capabilities should have the same flexibility we see in Excel, including the ability to manipulate data and create graphs. They need to have that, so we don't need to export to a spreadsheet."
"Sometimes, it is slow and hangs. We faced some stability issues where JIRA was down for a day. Also, we have lost some of our comments made in the JIRA because of downtime."
"There should be a way to look for specific comments. When we have thousands of comments on a Jira ticket, there is no way to look at the comments of a specific type. In the comments, if there is a way to put a tag, it would be helpful. For example, when there are a lot of lengthy discussions happening on a particular ticket, there could be a conclusion tag or something like that to indicate a conclusion. It would help in sorting the comments based on a certain category, such as conclusion."
"Lacks field-level permission in the cloud version."
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.