We performed a comparison between IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Polarion Requirements 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."The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"My company contacts the solution's technical support, and they are good and responsive."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"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."
"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."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"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."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"We worked with the web interface."
"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."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation has room for improvement compared to other tools like Polaris and Jama Connect. These tools offer more flexibility and options for developers, which IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation lacks. For example, you can define your link rules in Jama Connect, but you can't do that in IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult. For different roles, you will need different license models. That seems a little bit difficult for us. Especially when you introduce such a complex system, you want to know the right way is to do licensing. It's not clear what that best way would be. The solution will be here for a long time, and I just think it could be more clear."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"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."
"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."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 12 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.8, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.4. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Jira, Helix ALM and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Jira and Helix ALM. See our IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation 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.
