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.
"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"I would say that the best feature of the solution is that since everything is in one place, and if you make any changes, then they are recorded or tracked."
"It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"Traceability on requirements for a huge project in an organization is a big gain."
"The traceability matrix in DOORS improved our project outcomes. It helps ensure coverage of requirements at different levels, from user requirements to software requirements to test requirements."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"The software and GUI is very outdated."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"The images are not clear. We have to use them as OLE objects. And in the testing part, I'm not sure how to link it with it. This is my main concern."
"Not all Rational Team Concert operations are available from the web client. Certain operations, like creating streams or components, still require using the desktop application. They're not accessible through the web interface. And in my opinion, this limitation should be removed."
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"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 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."
"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 is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"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."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"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."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"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."
IBM Rational DOORS is ranked 1st in Application Requirements Management with 51 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 12 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, Helix ALM, Jama Connect, 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.
