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."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."
"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."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"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 data logs are ver conveneint."
"When you install DOORS locally, you have the flexibility to do what you want with the solution. You can add functionality and do many things that you can't do with other tools or do well enough to satisfy your users' requirements."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"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 would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"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."
"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."
"It's difficult to set the code on the solution."
"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 solution's speed has room for improvement."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
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.