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

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 7.4, while Siemens is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.9. IBM holds a 32.9% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 14.5% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 78% of Siemens users who would recommend it.
IBM DOORS
Read 55 IBM DOORS reviews
  • 7,104 Views
  • 2,421 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
Polarion Requirements
Read 14 Polarion Requirements reviews
  • 2,593 Views
  • 1,524 Comparison Views
78% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

IBM DOORS and Polarion Requirements compete as requirements management tools. Polarion is preferred for its user-friendliness and adaptability, while IBM DOORS is valued for its customization capabilities.

Features: IBM DOORS offers strong customization through DXL scripting, supports traceability, and provides robust integration. It's suitable for large-scale analyses and a broad range of tool integrations. Polarion Requirements excels in document management and collaboration, integrates well with tools like Teamcenter and Jira, and enhances workflows with electronic signatures.

Room for Improvement: IBM DOORS could benefit from a more intuitive interface and improved real-time collaboration. Polarion Requirements could enhance bulk editing, offer a better user experience, and improve document review processes.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM DOORS is mainly on-premises with mixed support reviews, although improvements have been noted. Polarion Requirements offers flexible deployment including cloud options and is praised for responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: IBM DOORS is expensive, justifying costs for large projects with significant ROI. Polarion Requirements, though also costly, offers flexible licensing, appealing for varied organizational roles.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: June 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM DOORS vs. Polarion Requirements
June 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 856,278 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
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 June 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of IBM DOORS is 32.9%, down from 34.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 14.5%, down from 15.4% 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.
Read full review
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.
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

"The most valuable feature of this solution is traceability. We can track every requirement, including what the stakeholder must do and component-level requirements."
"It is very customizable and easy to scale."
"IBM Rational DOORS keeps everything organized."
"The platform's traceability capabilities are invaluable. They provide a solid foundation for certification processes and manage requirement changes across project lifecycles."
"The data logs are ver conveneint."
"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 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."
"It helps to manage requirements efficiently, which significantly improves the way requirements are managed."
More IBM DOORS pros
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"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."
"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."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"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."
More Polarion Requirements pros
 

Cons

"Rational DOORS' most valuable feature is that you can write any kind of requirement you want."
"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."
"The web application DOORS Web Access doesn't have the same functionality as the standard client, so it's not a real substitute. For example, web Access only provides writing requirements, but you can't do much more with it."
"The low performance of the solution is probably because it is quite an old tool."
"The performance could be improved. It doesn't run as smoothly as it could."
"I would like to see them improve in agile management the Scrum/Kanban Board to work with overseas team members."
"IBM DOORS should cover all engineering functions seamlessly, not just requirement engineering."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and has not evolved in a long time."
More IBM DOORS cons
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"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 platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"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

"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."
"It is expensive to onboard additional users."
"The licensing cost is too high."
"Pricing can vary depending on the size of the organization and how contracts are negotiated."
"I am not sure why it is so expensive, but one license will cost approximately $15,000 in US dollars."
"The licensing costs for the product are quite high."
"IBM Rational DOORS is highly expensive."
"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."
More IBM DOORS pricing and cost advice
"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."
"The product's price is high."
"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."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
report
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
856,278 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
27%
Computer Software Company
9%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
8%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
8%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
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...
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?
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...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Jira vs IBM DOORS Logo
Jira vs IBM DOORS
Compared 25% of the time
Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS Logo
Jama Connect vs IBM DOORS
Compared 24% of the time
IBM DOORS Next vs IBM DOORS Logo
IBM DOORS Next vs IBM DOORS
Compared 10% of the time
OpenText Dimensions RM vs IBM DOORS Logo
OpenText Dimensions RM vs IBM DOORS
Compared 5% of the time
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs IBM DOORS Logo
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs IBM DOORS
Compared 5% of the time
More IBM DOORS Competitors
Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 21% of the time
IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements Logo
IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 10% of the time
Jira vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Jira vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 10% of the time
Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements Logo
Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 2% of the time
OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements Logo
OpenText Dimensions RM vs Polarion Requirements
Compared 1% of the time
More Polarion Requirements Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
IBM DOORS
May 2025
IBM DOORS reportDownload IBM DOORS product report
Buyer's Guide
Polarion Requirements
May 2025
Polarion Requirements reportDownload 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
June 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: June 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
856,278 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.