IBM DOORS vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector comparison

IBM and PTC are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. IBM is ranked #1 with an average rating of 7.3, while PTC is ranked #9. IBM holds a 28.0% mindshare in ARM, compared to PTC’s 3.1% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of PTC users who would recommend it.

IBM DOORS

Read 56 IBM DOORS reviews

6,055 Views
6,055 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

PTC Integrity Requirements ...

Read 1 PTC Integrity Requirements Connector review

547 Views
547 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM DOORS

PTC Integrity Requirements ...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM DOORS and PTC Integrity Requirements Connector based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Jama and others in Application Requirements Management.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Requirements Management Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Requirements Management

January 2026

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

PTC Integrity Requirements ...

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

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 PTC Integrity Requirements Connector is 3.1%, up from 3.0% 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%
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector	3.1%
Other	68.9%

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

Sandipan Roy

Electronic System Product Specialist at Cummins Inc.

A requirement management tool that provides a good technical support along with stability

I see that when we just define the configuration management part, it is a completely different case. Somehow in our organization or current profile, we are not built to make that linkage between that requirement and the configuration management part. So, if it is making some kind of accountability there or some kind of configuration linkage, then it would be a little bit helpful. The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user. At least for the new commerce may be. If it is possible, they can make it module-wise for the PTC Integrity team. To give along with the PTC channel itself, then it might be a little bit helpful. For example, as in the MATLAB that we are using, users have ample amount of use cases there and resources by which they can explore the learning part also. So, if it is possible for PTC Integrity directly to get that one, it will be helpful for the new users.

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

"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."

"Very customizable and can be as powerful as you want it to be."

"It is a mature product that is stable."

"IBM DOORS has a well-refined ASPICE template"

"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."

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

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

More IBM DOORS pros

"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."

Cons

"It would be helpful if Microsoft provided a more user-friendly interface for updating and querying updates. Additionally, if there was a way for users to notify developers of any changes in requirements, it would allow for faster and more efficient updates to the solution's architecture. This could be in the form of a notification system that alerts developers of any changes that need to be made. Additionally, the solution is document-driven and it should be more digital."

"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."

"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."

"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."

"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."

"It would have been ok ten years ago, but we are used to having better tools now."

"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."

"One thing that I would like to see is a lower-cost version of it that we could use for smaller projects. Sometimes, we do projects for commercial customers who would benefit from something like DOORS, but it's just so expensive. It's just a monster, so a lower-cost version would be the thing that we'd like to see."

More IBM DOORS cons

"The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."

"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."

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

"IBM is a bit too expensive in terms of pricing. Customers are paying a lot for the license, and the price is quite high for this kind of environment. It is quite high as compared to what we can get today with other solutions."

"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."

"It is expensive to onboard additional users."

More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

32%

Educational Organization

Consumer Goods Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

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.

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Polarion Requirements vs IBM DOORS

Compared 41% of the time

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

OpenText Dimensions RM vs IBM DOORS

Compared 4% of the time

More IBM DOORS Competitors

Jira vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector

Compared 27% of the time

IBM Rational Focal Point vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector

Compared 15% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector

Compared 15% of the time

More PTC Integrity Requirements Connector Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM DOORS

January 2026

Download IBM DOORS product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Requirements Management

January 2026

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector report

Download PTC Integrity Requirements Connector product report

Also Known As

Rational DOORS

PTC IRC

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

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector (IRC) enables an effective and efficient method to synchronize requirements across projects, departments and enterprise boundaries. Deploying IRC across an organization ensures that requirements are communicated, processed, easily acted upon and contribute to the success of your projects. This whitepaper explains the primary reasons why IRC is indispensable in today’s world of distributed product development.

PTC

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt

Cummins, Continental

Buyer's Guide

Application Requirements Management

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Jama and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.