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.
"Its visual display and ease of use are most valuable."
"It handles all of the issues that we need it to do."
"The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira."
"We like team collaboration and cross-functional collaboration."
"Scaling the product wouldn't be difficult."
"There are a couple of things that I find valuable about Jira, the first being its architecture. For instance, I like that you can create dashboards easily, which makes it very user-friendly. You don't need much training on that. You can just get right to it and people are able to use almost all of Jira's features with little training."
"The user interface is simple."
"I found it super useful, as it is customizable for different teams and users."
"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."
"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."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"Sometimes it takes time to load the data."
"The filtration could be better."
"Integration with some of the automation tools could be improved."
"If CI/CD is integrated with it, it would be better. I've used Azure DevOps before, and it's nice to have everything, such as CI/CD Repos and other things, integrated. Jira has fewer integrations. Azure DevOps has an easier interface, and it has got everything in one spot. I don't have to jump around in different applications."
"I want the tool to integrate connectors."
"Sometimes the solution doesn't communicate well with other platforms. It's quite difficult to integrate things and make the data flow from A to B, to Jira, and then back to other areas."
"Something I do not like about the new version is that there is a need to browse all the way back to the beginning, should a person click on a task that is specifically for his group and wish to go back and look at the other portfolios or people."
"We would like to see integration between Tempo and Jira."
"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."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"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."
"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Requirements Management with 259 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 12 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.
