We compared IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM Rational DOORS is praised for its robust requirements management capabilities, helpful customer service, reasonable pricing, and positive ROI. Users note varying times for setup and deployment. In contrast, Polarion Requirements is highlighted for its comprehensive traceability, advanced collaboration features, responsive customer support, flexible pricing, and impactful ROI. Users mention areas for improvement in user interface, performance, customization, and integration.
Features: IBM Rational DOORS offers robust requirements management capabilities and seamless integration with other tools and systems, enhancing collaboration and communication within teams. On the other hand, Polarion Requirements provides seamless integration, comprehensive traceability, and advanced collaboration capabilities. Users appreciate how easily it connects with various software and development tools, allowing for efficient data exchange and streamlined workflows. Moreover, its robust traceability functionality ensures transparency and accountability, while advanced collaboration features facilitate effective teamwork and communication among stakeholders.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for IBM Rational DOORS is straightforward and hassle-free, with flexible licensing options. On the other hand, Polarion Requirements offers a relatively easy setup process, benefiting from various budget-friendly options and customizable licensing plans., IBM Rational DOORS has proven to deliver a positive ROI with improved efficiency, productivity, collaboration, requirements management, and cost savings. Polarion Requirements offers similar benefits with additional customization options for tailored ROI optimization.
Room for Improvement: Users have pointed out several areas for improvement in both IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements. For IBM Rational DOORS, users suggest enhanced user interface customization options, better data management, and improved integration capabilities. On the other hand, users of Polarion Requirements recommend a more intuitive user interface, improved performance and speed, increased customization options, better integration with other tools, and better documentation and training resources.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback regarding the duration to establish a new tech solution with IBM Rational DOORS varies, with some users completing deployment in three months and setup in a week. In comparison, for Polarion Requirements, some users took three months for deployment and an additional week for setup, but these terms likely refer to the same period., IBM Rational DOORS demonstrates exceptional customer service with professional and knowledgeable support staff, while Polarion Requirements provides top-notch and highly responsive assistance. Both products ensure a smooth and satisfactory experience for customers.
The summary above is based on 17 interviews we conducted recently with IBM Rational DOORS and Polarion Requirements users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It has the features of: traceability, configuration management, and user access."
"The next-generation features are good."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"It is a stable solution."
"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"My company mainly utilizes the product for documenting internal standards, guidelines, and requirements. Currently, we're focusing on using it for internal purposes, but the vision is to expand its usage to include contract requirements and tracking functionalities. While we're not there yet, it has proven effective for managing our internal documentation needs."
"We can easily customize it because of the web services and open APIs. Also, the APIs are available. We integrated Polarion with one of Siemens' products, Teamcenter, which is especially useful for automotive industries. There is an open API for integration with Jira as well, so for me, customization is a strong point."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"The biggest improvement would be in the transparency we have now. We have very complex products. We make whole systems with difficult and diverse areas such as hardware, software, mechanical and printing, etc. To get the overview of all the requirements into a system, at that sizing, is the main advantage we have in the organization now."
"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"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 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."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
"We encountered numerous challenges, such as issues with requirements, project management, timing, and planning. The main problem with Polarion at the outset, I believe, was our limited understanding of the planning phase. During that time, we were more focused on change management related to requirements. Recognizing the importance of planning has been a key realization for us. Another mistake we made was not comprehending the need to document these requirements to manage all the work items effectively. Now, we understand the significance of this documentation. As a result of these insights, we have started to see a growing number of competitors from Polarion in this field. One potential improvement could be enabling Polarion to export work items not just to Microsoft Office but also to other office tools."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"Its user interface could be more user friendly. In addition, a lot of features are missing for test management. It should have the test case ordering feature."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.4. 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 Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with Jama Connect, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Helix ALM. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements 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.
