We performed a comparison between Jama Connect 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."Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the user-friendly interface."
"I like Jama Connect because it's easy to use and understand. The widgets are great, and linking is straightforward. The solution is not complex compared to its competitors."
"Technical support answers fairly quickly compared to others like IBM or Atlassian. They also offer quite a good knowledge base for advanced cases and how to plan it, etc. via videos that they provide. They are quite useful."
"You can get full traceability with any other system. It also includes a test module, and you build the traceability matrix incrementally throughout the development process."
"It is good at requirements management and test management."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"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."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"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."
"We worked with the web interface."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"t is rather slow, so the speed of the process and consuming information should be improved. It doesn't have a nice way of viewing information. We would like to see better interfaces for consuming information."
"I think there's room for improvement, especially with the review process. Reviews should be integrated with requirement evaluation instead of being separate from it. The review should not run parallel to the requirement."
"Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects."
"There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement."
"The initial setup could be better, it's complicated."
"The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities."
"I have inquired about pricing for this solution but have not yet heard anything, so their response time in this regard is something that should be improved."
"I believe one of the weak points is the reporting side. You must export inter-readable reports from Jama if you do not use the system as a repository for your design history file. Jama is great if you keep it in Jama, but reporting out requires some customization to get it right."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"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."
"We encountered numerous challenges, such as issues with requirements, project management, timing, and planning. The main problem with Polarion at the outset, I believe, was our limited understanding of the planning phase. During that time, we were more focused on change management related to requirements. Recognizing the importance of planning has been a key realization for us. Another mistake we made was not comprehending the need to document these requirements to manage all the work items effectively. Now, we understand the significance of this documentation. As a result of these insights, we have started to see a growing number of competitors from Polarion in this field. One potential improvement could be enabling Polarion to export work items not just to Microsoft Office but also to other office tools."
Jama Connect is ranked 5th in Application Requirements Management with 9 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. Jama Connect is rated 7.4, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Jama Connect writes "Agile, well structured, and has a great review module, which makes the design reviews smooth". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". Jama Connect is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Polarion ALM, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Helix ALM. See our Jama Connect 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.
