We performed a comparison between Jira 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."The solution is very scalable and flexible."
"The task management aspect of Jira is pretty pure. They have a lot of great plugins that really expand your options."
"Jira improved our team collaboration by providing visual visibility and transparency. Everyone could see what tasks were being worked on and the progress made. The development team updated task statuses, making tracking progress and planning sprints easy. If there were any impediments or challenges, we addressed them. This process helped us track our progress."
"You can record your unit testing, regression testing, UATs, et cetera."
"The solution offers a lot of plugins."
"The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira."
"The user interface is simple."
"What I really like about Jira is that it ticks off all the boxes for any agile project. It's easy to set up, easy to use, and it has excellent notification features. Jira is the top choice for anyone working on agile projects like ours."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"Jira can improve by making methodologies better, such as scrum and agile. Additionally, improvements in Kanban boards are needed."
"There are some features and reports we need that are not there. For example, if I have to find out the capacity of the current sprint by user and compare it with the previous sprint, that visibility isn't there."
"Its search and reporting can be improved. They are already nice, but they can be further improved."
"We'd like to see Jira have more integration with a development ID."
"I would like to see test execution modules."
"We'd like to use it with non-Agile projects in the future, however, right now, it is a very Agile-focused product."
"We would like to see integration between Tempo and Jira."
"Scripts should be more readily available for implementing projects."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"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."
"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."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"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 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."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 266 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 13 reviews. Jira is rated 8.2, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Polarion ALM, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation and Helix ALM. See our Jira 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.