They are still evolving. It's not perfect, but it's probably among the best available.

You must learn it. Nothing is given away for free. It takes some time to get used to, but once you do, it works perfectly.

The entire requirement management process is complex in and of itself, but if you're already running manually or with other tools, I believe the transition to Jama will be relatively painless. That depends on your starting point. That is most likely one of the disadvantages. It is an advanced tool. However, this comes with it. You have to pay the price.

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. It has all of those options, but you have to work with them. What information do we need to include in the report? Jama has a tonne of information. But you have to work on that, and Jama provides you with service.

There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement. They also don't have a good support team or customer care. Its reporting could also be improved.

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. 

The initial setup could be better, it's complicated.

They could be better. In my perception, they are slow to move on feature improvements.

The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities. There are some features lacking more advanced linking functionalities and the like. Several of our customers have asked for those to be improved, but the company has prioritized elsewhere. The user interface is reasonable but to keep up with the competition, they need to think about how it looks and feels.

It 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 would like to see better interfaces for consuming information. Also, there should be more support for writing specifications. I would like to see a standardized way to define terms, a glossary. When I'm writing text it would help me to automatically link to those terms.

There are some areas where UI is a little week, and some areas where's it's very good. The ability to track, version and display changes to test cases over time is excellent. While the data model for traceability has been solid, I often find that most analysis requires export to Excel. Happily the export works well, and there is a decent (re-)import capability. Like any tool, it has some quirks here and there, and there are a set of work-arounds for certain things which have become part of our usage.

Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects.

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. For example, listing the pricing structure on the web site would help.