Compare IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation vs. Polarion Requirements

IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is ranked 4th in Application Requirements Management with 4 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 7th in Application Requirements Management with 3 reviews. IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is rated 7.2, while Polarion Requirements is rated 5.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation writes "Simplified our requirement process, helping with requirement creation and reuse". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Well-structured, but the import feature and the dashboards need to be improved". IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, Jama Connect, PTC Integrity Requirements Connector and Helix ALM, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with Jira, IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Helix ALM and 3SL Cradle. See our IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation vs. Polarion Requirements report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
426,653 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable features are the baselines and links.It's a cloud based solution.It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install.The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them.

More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pros »

A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization.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.

More Polarion Requirements Pros »

Cons
It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor.The whole layout of the screen could be improved, the layout is just so rigid.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.When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive.

More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Cons »

It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts.If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable.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.

More Polarion Requirements Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year.Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros.The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees.

More IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation Pricing and Cost Advice »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
426,653 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
3,074
Comparisons
1,738
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
763
Avg. Rating
7.3
Views
2,963
Comparisons
2,522
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
513
Avg. Rating
5.3
Popular Comparisons
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Also Known As
RDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC
Learn
IBM
Siemens
Overview
IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation offers a smarter way to manage your requirements that can help your teams reduce development costs by up to 57%, accelerate time to market by up to 20%, and lower cost of quality by up to 69%. Designed for collaboration, Rational DOORS Next Generation provides a single platform for managing requirements so that your teams can work more effectively across disciplines, time zones and supply chains.Polarion REQUIREMENTS is designed from the ground for highly effective, transparent and secure collaboration, while teams have the option to work in their familiar environments.
Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation
Learn more about Polarion Requirements
Sample Customers
Major health insurerNetSuite, Ottobock, Zumtobel Group, Kªster Automotive GmbH, Sirona Dental Systems, LifeWatch, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PHOENIX CONTACT Electronics GmbH, Metso Corporation
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Manufacturing Company11%
Comms Service Provider7%
K 12 Educational Company Or School6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Manufacturing Company24%
Comms Service Provider12%
Healthcare Company9%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
426,653 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.