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

IBM DOORS vs Parasoft Development Testing Platform 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
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Parasoft Development Testin...
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
14th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (19th), Test Management Tools (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 32.5%, down from 35.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft Development Testing Platform is 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

SHRINIVAS ALAGERI - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers a well-refined ASPICE template and satisfying requirement management features
IBM DOORS effectively synchronizes with Polarion. But suppose when Polarion is running on Linux and you want to integrate with IBM DOORS on Windows, that is when compatibility issues arise. For the aforementioned issue we often receive advise in our company to migrate Polarion to Windows before integration. IBM DOORS is a heavy-duty application compared to competitors such as PTC Integrity. Exporting an IBM DOORS module is highly time-consuming for its bulkiness. PTC Integrity is a lighter solution that allows the development of a gateway template. It's crucial to consider the use cases and the other vendors that need to be integrated before using IBM DOORS. Our company is a PTC competence center, so most of our customers are from PTC. The customer integrations our company deals with include modeling tools such as Simulink, MATLAB, and Integrity Modeler to synchronize documents. The digital threat maintenance between IOD and Windchill is also a crucial part of our organization's operations. The solution should be more compatible with thin clients, there should be focus on web-based clients who can be more effective in IBM DOORS. At our company, we don't want every customer to use the thick client format with the solution. I would like to witness the seamless integration of IBM DOORS with Windchill in the future version. The integrations in IBM DOORS should be web-based, I don't prefer to use multiple plug-ins. For example, I want to integrate IBM DOORS with MATLAB, Simulink and Jenkins effortlessly which is possible in Codebeamer. I want every feature of Codebeamer to be present in IBM DOORS in the future releases.
Ujjwal Gupta - PeerSpot reviewer
A complete test management tool that facilitates developers' unit testing
Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time. This would reduce the execution time, helping achieve goals on time, and with less effort required. I use the different licenses to manage this issue and it can be controlled by different users for functional testing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."
"The platform's traceability capabilities are invaluable. They provide a solid foundation for certification processes and manage requirement changes across project lifecycles."
"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"What I like about DOORS is baselines, it's easy and I use the capability of multiple users. The traceability or links between different levels are very nice. Additionally, it is used by all of our suppliers, which brings us commonality."
"Compared to other tools that I have used over the past 20 years, DOORS is the best of the best."
"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"The most valuable feature is the management verification and login."
"It really helps developers execute scenarios through DTP and share reports/results across the teams."
"The most valuable feature is code coverage."
 

Cons

"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."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"Both the performance and the price could be improved."
"There needs to be quicker access to tech support. When I have a two minute question that takes two minutes to answer, it shouldn't take me 45 minutes and/or a few days of callbacks to get to the right technical support person. It's unnecessary and frustrating for the user."
"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"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 problem is that because the GUI is so bad, you either have to spend a lot of money customizing the interface yourself, or a lot of money on training."
"Parallel execution: It would help it multiple executions could be done at the same time."
"The solution's speed has room for improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"
"The licensing cost is too high."
"We have to pay for a license. I think it's a one-time payment as my company hasn't notified me about more charges. I don't think it's expensive for large corporations, but it will be costly for an average person."
"It's expensive."
"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."
"Costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
26%
Computer Software Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Rational DOORS?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS?
Over the years, the first version cost something around 5800 euros.
What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS?
Compared to today, DOORS' competitors also excel in this discipline. Yet the price is too high. It's often not as generic as it used to be. IBM promised to find a way for a generic format that allo...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS
Parasoft Concerto, Parasoft DTP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, AAI Textron, Boeing, Fidelity, Johnson & Johnson, CIBC, Penske, Thales, Dell, 
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS vs. Parasoft Development Testing Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.