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."I like being able to sort and categorize the requirements and the exporting functions."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"When you install DOORS locally, you have the flexibility to do what you want with the solution. You can add functionality and do many things that you can't do with other tools or do well enough to satisfy your users' requirements."
"It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"We have different generations of all products. It lets us select and see unique attributes for each release or generation. You can use attributes to define a selection area to see which equipments are for the old versions and which ones are for the new versions. This inbuilt view is what I like in IBM Rational DOORS. So, for a database and a set of requirements, it will select and show unique attributes for a release or a generation."
"It is a stable solution."
"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"The most valuable features are the baselines and links."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"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."
"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."
"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"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."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."
"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."
"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."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"There is room for improvement in the APIs that they have exposed for integration."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"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 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."
"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."
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.