Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

IBM DOORS Next
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
5th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
4th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS Next is 7.7%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 16.3%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polarion Requirements16.3%
IBM DOORS Next7.7%
Other76.0%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Juergen Albrecht - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at CCC Systems Engineering Suisse GmbH
Has supported complex industry migrations and helps ensure compliance but needs more intuitive usability for occasional users
It is difficult to explain my opinion on IBM DOORS Next; the usability is not as good as I expected, and it is very complex and complicated. It is not a bad tool if you understand how it works, but from the perspective of engineers who only use IBM DOORS Next approximately several times a month but not permanently, it is not very comfortable or intuitive to use. The implementation, migration, and configuration need more user-friendly usability, perhaps through on-site guidance or intuitive use with push button functions, which might be more comfortable, because at the moment, it looks very complex, and ordinary engineers often mention that they have to work with this tool but would not choose to. Simplifying IBM DOORS Next would not be a bad idea. From my perspective and connections with friends at IBM in Switzerland, I gain access to very good background information that helps me satisfy my clients. However, if I had not had these contacts, I might have felt lost inside the tool chain. I am really satisfied as long as I can get help, but I believe it would be a great benefit if the tool itself offered more intuitive push-button functions and similar enhancements. The pricing of the tool itself does not actually matter because the power, performance, and accuracy of this tool are excellent, and that is not the point of contention. All clients agree that the tool is not bad, but the complexity is an issue since it creates a situation where you feel lost while working with it. The intuitive usability that we learned from Classic DOORS is simply not the same. I understand that the complexity has grown, yet I believe it would not be a bad idea if IBM considered splitting or breaking down IBM DOORS Next into two options or, better yet, developing a modular architecture that suits smaller and mid-sized projects. For larger projects with a lot of subsystems, it makes sense to use the full range of the tool, but for startups or mid-sized companies, it would be beneficial if they could select modules according to their needs. More visible on-site automatic help would be beneficial. For instance, if you need to move something, as you use the mouse cursor, an automatic message could pop up asking what you would like to do so that you can select within that context, and it would automatically perform the task. Modern software development recognizes that this type of modifying usability makes life much easier for users. Many have mentioned that whether it is Rhapsody, DOORS, or IBM DOORS Next, the issue is they work only a few times a month and are not professionals with these tools, which leads them to contact me for assistance. It would not be a bad idea for IBM to make this tool more handy, efficient, and user-friendly since most users do not work full days or even months on these tasks and are not familiar with the complete usability.
reviewer2798628 - PeerSpot reviewer
Project Manager at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Comprehensive traceability has supported regulated projects but review workflows still need improvement
The ability to manage requirements through the whole project life is somewhat unclear. We are not using the ability to track all requirements through the whole project life for analytics very much. We have a way to easily find all the requirements of a complex product, even if they are spread over different Polarion Requirements projects. We do not have any issues in that area, but we are not really using the analytics part of Polarion Requirements. I am satisfied with the integration capabilities for Polarion Requirements, but it depends. We encountered a lot of issues with the integration with Enterprise Architect. We were in contact with Lemon Tree company, which provides support for that integration, but we eventually decided to develop our own plugins for Polarion Requirements. That is unfortunate, but we are not really happy with their implementation. There are things that are going really well, but alongside this, there are also things that are not yet implemented, which is quite annoying for us. The main point for improvement or lack of functions that I would like to address in Polarion Requirements is really about the review process, which is a bit too limited. When we are developing complex products, we have to review big life documents or a set of work items, but there are a lot of issues with that. For example, very simple things: if you select a word and not a space in the document, you are not able to add comments, and it is not user-friendly. If you know that you have to put the cursor and not select the word, that is something people can live with, but for newcomers, it is frustrating. They will ask questions such as 'I cannot add a comment about this word' or for a selection of text. That is something annoying. You can do that in a simple Word document, but not in Polarion Requirements. Also, the ability to review a table or generated dynamic content is not possible in Polarion Requirements. For example, if you generate automatically a list of tests, you cannot click on the second one; you can only click at the beginning of the generated sections. I am somewhat satisfied with Polarion Requirements' functionality, but I feel a lack of certain functions regarding the review, which is a bit too limited. The review process is the main pain point for me, especially since we are in a highly regulated environment where reviews are crucial for us.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 has easy operation, is user-friendly, easily understood, and has better tracking for requirement management."
"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."
"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."
"It's web-based, so you don't have anything to install."
"IBM DOORS Next is known for its heavy-duty capability, which is especially beneficial in heavily regulated environments facing frequent audits."
"The "Link by Attribute" feature is useful for making links without needing to use the web interface manually."
"The most valuable features are the versioning of requirements and the possibility to reuse them."
"Polarion Requirements is a really great product despite the limitations I mentioned and the price which is getting more and more expensive."
"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."
"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 most beneficial features of Polarion Requirements for traceability include the traceability function and also the historical and matchmaking or cross-referencing, which was very good."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"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 worked with the web interface."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
 

Cons

"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."
"As a web tool, DNG can be difficult to use if the server is loaded or your network connection to it is saturated."
"In my opinion, IBM DOORS Next does not have any Agile support, and that is why for requirement analysis, IBM DOORS Next is correct, but for someone who is working in an Agile process, IBM DOORS Next is not the solution because it is not integrated into the Agile working process."
"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."
"When you are not working on it every day it is not very intuitive."
"It offers a bad user experience and the usability is poor."
"The only additional feature would be if it had dynamic linking to other MBSE tool sets or industry-leading tools."
"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."
"I am somewhat satisfied with Polarion Requirements' functionality, but I feel a lack of certain functions regarding the review, which is a bit too limited."
"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."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Users can buy a three-year license for about 12,000 Euros."
"The price of this solution is very high, and it increases year after year."
"If the product price were not reasonable enough, our company would not use IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation."
"You are going to need a beefy server and a fat network pipe to it in order to make DNG and its companion tools work well for users."
"The cost of maintenance is €20,000 to €30,000 ($22,000 to $33,000 USD) and there are no additional fees."
"I believe the cost is subjective. It seems a bit pricey, but it depends on your perspective. To provide some context, I compared the prices with GitLab and Jira. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Jira's prices. However, GitLab costs around 40 euros, and DeepLab, which I recently discovered, also falls in a similar price range. I'm not sure about DeepLab's features or interface improvements, as they might have been implementing requirements management over the past six months. In contrast, Polarion costs around 50 to 60 euros based on the 2021 prices I have. While it may seem a bit expensive, it's worth considering whether the additional investment, perhaps around 68 euros per user, is justified. It might appear costly at first glance, but it's essential to acknowledge that it can greatly streamline your work processes."
"The product's price is high."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
"It is expensive but not for what it is. It is just the right price for what it is. Its price is also similar to other solutions."
"The pricing model is flexible. You don't have to pay for the full functionalities. And it's a one-time investment for the licenses. You purchase what you need and then can work with that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
24%
Government
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
29%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Transportation Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
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 tr...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
The solution is slightly high in terms of affordability. I give eight points only because the price is a bit high, which is the only problem since I am the purchasing person, but not the technical ...
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation?
It is difficult to explain my opinion on IBM DOORS Next; the usability is not as good as I expected, and it is very complex and complicated. It is not a bad tool if you understand how it works, but...
What do you like most about Polarion Requirements?
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 work...
What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?
The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor. The user configuration had some issues; you need to know al...
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS Next Generation, RDNG, Rational Requirements Composer and IBM RRC
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Major health insurer
NetSuite, Ottobock, Zumtobel Group, Kªster Automotive GmbH, Sirona Dental Systems, LifeWatch, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PHOENIX CONTACT Electronics GmbH, Metso Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS Next vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.