We performed a comparison between Polarion ALM and Rally Software based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The technical support is quite good."
"Polarion ALM's integration is very good and easy to use."
"It offers good performance."
"The best feature of Polarion ALM to me is its traceability link."
"The most valuable feature is the function of the ALM system."
"I am impressed with the solution’s stability."
"Polarion ALM helps us better structure our customer requirements, and we can also validate the specs of our products against those. If anything changes on our side, we see the impact, and we can see the effect If a customer changes requirements."
"Scalability is good...The integration is quite good."
"It helps with getting the alignment between strategy and execution for the product teams, all the way down to the delivery teams."
"Reporting is much easier and faster than Micro Focus ALM, with CA AC built on web services... Also, the data is more granular when it comes to tasks, iterations, sprints, and releases."
"It's very user-friendly."
"It scales very well. It improves in technology constantly and gets up to speed with the latest and greatest."
"The most valuable feature is actually creating a field within there for architectural review. So when teams are struggling or have questions on the architecture or strategy that they take, they can actually flag that particular story, release, or project. Those can then be reviewed by the architecture team and the teams actually get additional information on how to course-correct, build on the architecture that we're trying to build throughout the organization, and get over road blocks much quicker."
"The most useful part is how it breaks down tasks into parents and children, manageable tasks. It has a whole project as an initiative, and then it breaks it down further and further. And then you get to actual user stories and tasks that you can sit and develop."
"It helps me evaluate teams' historical performance using velocity charts."
"The visibility it brings to the plan, the ability to capture tasks, and trace them all the way through the life cycle. Providing that visibility helps both me and the team, or teams, to be able to understand where we are in the development process."
"The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience."
"The tool needs to improve its planning. It also needs to add more integrations."
"The solution's editing capabilities need improvement."
"The configuration aspect of the solution is not easy. A person needs a lot of programming knowledge in order to successfully handle the job."
"The weak point of Polarion ALM software is about reporting and time for extraction of the data...The quality of reporting needs to improve."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and a server-based application rather than client based."
"The ease-of-use could be improved a little."
"Technical support needs some improvement."
"As it is right now, it does not support automation of the quality assurance process. It just supports manual testing."
"There are few customisation options. For instance, the workflow for story cards cannot be changed out of the box from the standard (Defined, In-Progress, Completed and Accepted)."
"I would like for workspace admins to be able to hide projects in the Project Picker and not lose any historical data; make them invisible to certain users, visible to certain users, depending on permission sets. That would be lovely."
"It's a bit cumbersome to manage the Project Picker. As we sunset teams or projects close out - but we still have test cases tied to those teams or projects that are being used in other spaces - we have this monstrous list in the Project Picker that becomes really difficult to manage and find, and we can't clean that up ourselves. It would be nice if it was easier to do that and not lose your history."
"I think there is a missing link with the development activity. Some developers are pushing in new versions of the code, but you cannot make the link from the user story to a specific application version."
"It requires better scalability for the implementation of the whole suite. We do not use it in that fashion, and visibility is sometimes a problem."
"I would like to see more Kanban support. As it stands, it doesn't seem to have the features or the layouts that the teams really need to be able to execute their tasks. It almost tries to force you into more of a Scrum style."
"Customization features may not be exposed or unavailable, so people may be looking for them. So, customization is an area people have told me is more desirable."
Polarion ALM is ranked 8th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 17 reviews while Rally Software is ranked 7th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 116 reviews. Polarion ALM is rated 7.8, while Rally Software is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Polarion ALM writes "Though needing an improvement in reporting and time for extraction of the data, its integration capabilities are good". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rally Software writes "Good discussion and note-taking capabilities but hard to track the changes". Polarion ALM is most compared with Jira, Microsoft Azure DevOps, Codebeamer, PTC Integrity and Atlassian ALM, whereas Rally Software is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, TFS, Jira Align and ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management. See our Polarion ALM vs. Rally Software report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.
