IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements comparison

IBM and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. IBM is ranked #1 with an average rating of 7.3, while Siemens is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 28.0% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.7% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

IBM DOORS

Read 56 IBM DOORS reviews

6,055 Views
6,055 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 15 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,509 Views
2,509 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

IBM DOORS and Polarion Requirements are established requirement management tools within the tech industry. Polarion is perceived to have the upper hand due to its ease of use and integration capabilities, offering higher value despite similar costs to IBM DOORS.

Features: IBM DOORS offers extensive customization through DXL scripting, allowing tailored process flows and integration with engineering tools. It provides detailed traceability, impact analysis, and configuration management. Polarion is known for traceability, seamless integration, and collaboration support, which is ideal for dynamic environments and offers consistency across requirements.

Room for Improvement: IBM DOORS presents a steep learning curve and complex integration issues with newer tools. Polarion's interface can be cumbersome, and its bulk editing and document review processes need enhancement. Users also desire more robust collaboration tools in Polarion.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM DOORS mainly supports on-premises deployments with hybrid options, while Polarion offers public and private cloud options, easing modern IT integration. IBM's customer service has improved but can be inconsistent, whereas Polarion benefits from stable support, fostering user confidence.

Pricing and ROI: IBM DOORS is costly with high licensing fees suited for large enterprises. Polarion, while also pricey, provides flexible licenses catering to different roles, potentially more cost-effective. Both tools provide significant ROI for substantial projects; Polarion's license flexibility may benefit varying project sizes with minimal initial investment.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

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

1st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 28.0%, down from 34.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.7%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
IBM DOORS	28.0%
Polarion Requirements	15.7%
Other	56.3%

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

Amol Dumbre

Software Manager at Forvia

Integrated lifecycle management has supported global A‑SPICE projects and custom reporting

I believe the toolchain currently covers all of our requirements. Even for A-SPICE and related requirements, I can add attributes and manage things effectively because the tool is highly customizable. I can continue updating things and managing different processes. The only gap I have identified is in code-level coverage reporting. I have coverage traceability from IBM DOORS through the architecture and design, but I am unable to demonstrate code-level coverage reporting. That reporting capability would be helpful. Testing is covered very well through IBM Test Manager. The traceability to code is something I feel there may be certain gaps in, though I may not be fully aware of all capabilities since my role is different and I primarily receive reports rather than being an end user. Regarding the traceability feature, I am not an end user but rather receive reports from my team, so my perspective is limited.

Read full review

Effendy Mohamed

Principal Instrument and Control at PETRONAS

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."

"I like the user interface with regard to creating links between requirements and tracing links to requirements."

"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 most valuable feature of IBM Rational DOORS is the full requirements development and testing."

"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."

"It is very customizable and easy to scale."

"The shell scripting is the solution's most valuable aspect."

"The program is very stable."

More IBM DOORS pros

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

"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."

"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Polarion Requirements is a really great product despite the limitations I mentioned and the price which is getting more and more expensive."

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"The software and GUI is very outdated."

"Enhancing security measures, particularly when handling multiple projects simultaneously, would be beneficial to prevent data loss within DOORS."

"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."

"There are problems with communicating between DOORS and Microsoft Office."

"The customer must also have the tool to import the changes and accept them as a part of the review."

"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."

"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."

"It is complicated sometimes, such as the logic about updating, moving from one server version to another, and the communication between restricted and non-restricted servers."

More IBM DOORS cons

"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 think it's expensive because you have to pay for the licenses to IBM and all that and maintain them."

"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"

"It's expensive."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."

"It is expensive to onboard additional users."

"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with one being very affordable and ten being quite expensive."

More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice

"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."

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

"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."

"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."

"The product's price is high."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

26%

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

Healthcare Company

Transportation Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	12
Midsize Enterprise	10
Large Enterprise	38

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	5

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Rational DOORS?

Over the years, the first version cost something around 5800 euros.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Rational DOORS?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polarion Requirements?

I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?

See all answers

Comparisons

Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS

Compared 17% of the time

Jira vs IBM DOORS

Compared 16% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs IBM DOORS

Compared 9% of the time

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs IBM DOORS

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Dimensions RM vs IBM DOORS

Compared 4% of the time

More IBM DOORS Competitors

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 11% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 7% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 5% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 3% of the time

OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 1% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS

January 2026

Download IBM DOORS product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

January 2026

Download Polarion Requirements product report

Also Known As

Rational DOORS

No data available

Overview

IBM Engineering Requirements Management DOORS (DOORS) is a Requirements Management (RM) software designed to help organizations manage engineering project requirements throughout the development lifecycle. It provides a central location for capturing, defining, and organizing project requirements, facilitating communication and collaboration among stakeholders like engineers, system designers, and customers. Key features include requirements traceability, version control, and impact analysis, ensuring effective implementation and testing. DOORS improves efficiency, enhances communication, reduces risks, and supports better decision-making through clear visibility into requirements. Compared to its newer, web-based counterpart DOORS Next, the mature DOORS 9 offers a wider range of features with a traditional user interface but lacks web-based functionality and modern integration with IBM Engineering Lifecycle Management (ELM) tools.

IBM

Polarion REQUIREMENTS is designed from the ground for highly effective, transparent and secure collaboration, while teams have the option to work in their familiar environments.

Siemens

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

December 2025

Free Report: IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DOORS 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.