We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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."IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"Makes good work of prioritizing and planning product delivery."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"The next-generation features are good."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is easier to expand to build a backend with several servers, so you can also use it to scale up to several hundreds of users without major problems."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"There are many good features with DOORS. The solution has a concept of streams and baselines, as well as a concept of components. A component is a subproject inside a project."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"The tool's most valuable feature is displaying requirements in a tabular format. This means you can see everything laid out in columns and rows. It is more aesthetic compared to other tools. The traceability matrix helps to view things better. It comes with different linking rules."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."
"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."
"I think there is probably room to improve by offering free training."
"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."
"It does have a tendency to condense the requirements. It kind of puts them in a tree format. Sometimes those trees are a little difficult."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"I have come to the conclusion that if you are considering migrating from DOORS to DNG, don't! Instead of spending 100's to 1000's of hours doing migrations, invest those hours in a DXL programmer to make DOORS do what it isn't doing for you now."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"When you are in Jira or Confluence, you have some freedom in how you type in text. That's also a weakness of Confluence, however, as it opens the doors to sloppy work. In DOS Next Generation, the text is very rigorous, but it might be difficult for people who don't have the discipline. Having a way to quickly enter requirements could help. It might already be in there, but I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the tool yet."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8. 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 IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation writes "An industry-leading tool to demonstrate traceability between requirements, with valuable features for tailoring modules and managing several thousand requirements". IBM Rational DOORS is most compared with Polarion Requirements, Jira, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with Jama Connect, Jira, Polarion Requirements, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector. See our IBM Rational DOORS vs. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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.