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

IBM DOORS vs PTC Integrity Requirements Connector comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
56
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
1
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 is 27.6%, down from 34.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PTC Integrity Requirements Connector is 3.2%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM DOORS27.6%
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector3.2%
Other69.2%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Amol Dumbre - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Sandipan Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The program is very stable."
"The next-generation features are good."
"This product can help improve how your organization proceeds through solution development."
"I really like the customization that can be done using the DOORS Extension Language (DXL)."
"I really enjoyed the API."
"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."
"Starting to use the solution is pretty straightforward. There isn't too much of a learning curve."
"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"Overall, the user experience should be enhanced."
"The interface needs an area to be able to type your query and actually be able to find them."
"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."
"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 interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
"Both the performance and the price could be improved."
"They need to provide users with information on what options would be best for their setup."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"Licensing fees are billed annually and there is no support included with what I pay."
"IBM DOORS is available at a reasonable price"
"The licensing cost is too high."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
25%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
35%
Consumer Goods Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise38
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?
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 customizab...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Rational DOORS
PTC IRC
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Infosys, Chevrolet Volt
Cummins, Continental
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Jama and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: January 2026.
881,821 professionals have used our research since 2012.