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 "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"One of the most valuable features is how you can tailor the modules."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"As far as maintaining our requirements so that we can have copies of them, it's good. I can print it out if necessary."
"We worked with the web interface."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"In my opinion, Polarion Requirements' most beneficial feature is the ability to manage specifications within a work-like document that functions as a work item. Its collaboration features have worked very well and have been very useful. We can easily exchange information with the testing team, the business, and with DevOps."
"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."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"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."
"Be very careful how you load your DNG server. There are limits to the number of artifacts a server can handle."
"Both the data storage and reporting for this solution need improvement."
"IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation is not a very user-friendly product."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"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."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for engineers to understand how it works, as many features are not very easily understandable for end-users."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"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."
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 13 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.