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

IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 27, 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
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 30.6%, down from 34.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.1%, down from 16.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM DOORS30.6%
Polarion Requirements15.1%
Other54.3%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

UweSeufert - PeerSpot reviewer
Old but capable of storing, organizing, and exchanging requirements
I use IBM DOORS because my customer wants it for managing their requirements IBM DOORS is a tool from the 20th century. It is very old but capable of storing, organizing, and exchanging requirements. It helps to manage requirements efficiently, which significantly improves the way requirements…
Effendy Mohamed - PeerSpot reviewer
Positive impact on traceability while user interface and setup require improvement
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 all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy. Someone who has a good IT background would be able to use it, but a regular person who just knows more or has always been dealing with Microsoft Word might find it difficult to use that system. Users need skills to work with this solution and also need to have some foundation of why those technical integrations and cross-referencing have to be done in such a way through systematization, which makes it difficult and not straightforward through the visibility of the user interface.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature for me is the ability to enter data into one table, or context, and link it across modules."
"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 a mature product that is stable."
"IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template"
"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"I like the way we can simply link requirements with one another and with test descriptions and then automatically produce reports that are required to show compliance to our customers. It is a combination of requirements management and reporting that I like, but I really have very little to do with the reporting part of it. I don't know how easy or hard it is to create those reports."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"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."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"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."
 

Cons

"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"It used to be very clunky."
"The kind of dashboard is not very convenient."
"Both the performance and the price could be improved."
"It would be nice if it could be scaled-down so that it could be installed and implemented without much learning or training."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"IBM should integrate some solutions they already own toenhance the utility of the product further. Specifically import and export to Office products is more difficult than it needs to be."
"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."
"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."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"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."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."
"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."
"I don't personally know what the numbers are. I just know that one of the reasons we've limited it to three seats is a function of cost."
"I think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."
"The licensing cost is too high."
"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
26%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Transportation Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise36
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

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...
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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
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 vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.