We performed a comparison between 3SL Cradle and Polarion Requirements based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Requirements Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately."
"We worked with the web interface."
"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."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"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."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"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."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"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."
"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."
"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."
3SL Cradle is ranked 11th in Application Requirements Management with 3 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. 3SL Cradle is rated 8.0, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of 3SL Cradle writes "Flexible solution that manages all your needs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". 3SL Cradle is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS and Jira, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Helix ALM. See our 3SL Cradle 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.
