We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Polarion ALM OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Polarion ALM is the #9 ranked solution in our list of top Enterprise Agile Planning Tools. It is most often compared to Jira: Polarion ALM vs Jira

What is Polarion ALM?

The world’s first 100% browser-based ALM enterprise solution, which enables seamless collaboration across disparate teams, multi-directionally linked work items, full traceability, accelerated productivity and automated proof of compliance.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2021

Polarion ALM Customers

Engineering Ingegneria Informatica, IBS AG, Zumtobel Group

Polarion ALM Video

Archived Polarion ALM Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
WB
Consultant
Consultant
Enables us to circulate a work ticket within teams but it's not a complete solution

Pros and Cons

  • "You can see the work ticket and you can circulate that within the teams. You can define your flows, customize according to your needs, and you can create dashboards and create the reports according to your needs."
  • "The most important thing for them to improve should be platform-independent features. They should also provide extensive pipelines and release pipelines that we can define and we can work on."

What is our primary use case?

I use the on-prem deployment model. Our primary use case is for application life cycle management, DevOps, and all the application requirements.

What is most valuable?

You can see the work ticket and you can circulate that within the teams. You can define your flows, customize according to your needs, and you can create dashboards and create the reports according to your needs. The version is not a distributed version of those systems. I think after requiring the kit by Microsoft most of the parties who are already using different ALM tools, they are moving towards Azure DevOps. Microsoft should be dedicated to moving the teams, creating new features, and making the Azure DevOps most straight-form independent. I have been using Siemens Polarion for three years but I haven't found out a way that you can use it in your own methodology for content management systems. If you were to say that everything is integrated and it's a complete solution, I would say it's not.

What needs improvement?

The most important thing for them to improve should be platform-independent features. They should also provide extensive pipelines and release pipelines that we can define and we can work on. 

Another area of improvement is integration with external tools and external platforms like Linux, Mac, and other stuff. Most of the teams are basically moving towards faster development. Everything should be flexible. All the tasks you can see in AWS and Azure, you would just need to drag and drop and release into the pipeline.

Right now, if you can evaluate the tools, then I think that as for the cost differences and for the usability, and other things concerned, so I will rate AWS at the first, Azure second, and then Atlassian tools and then Siemens would be fourth or fifth. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It has worked well. Communication, dashboarding, reporting, content management, workflows, and you are creating user stories and you'll communicate within teams creating different divisions, mapping, queuing; for these kinds of things, that is good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is good. It's easy to expand it. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward as far as the installation and management. It's easy to establish, setup, and deploy. 

The deployment took two to three hours. 

What other advice do I have?

I would rate it a five out of ten. I would like to see better integration and better extensivity of tasks. The costs are not proportionate to the features it offers. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
IZ
Assistant Engineer at Zsikla István
Real User
Straightforward setup and the support is ok, but usability is hindered by too many items in one LiveDoc

Pros and Cons

  • "The initial setup of this solution was straightforward, and there were not too many problems with it."
  • "The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use this solution for requirement engineering. 

Our deployment is on a private cloud from Siemens. 

What needs improvement?

The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience.

If we have too many work items in one LiveDoc then usage can be limited because the loading times are very slow.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the limitations removed.

There should be a better facility for importing, such as from an IBM Rational Doors document.

The configuration would be much simpler if it had limited functions for synchronizing with JIRA, for example.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of this solution is not bad, but it could be better. If there are too many work items in one LiveDoc then usage is limited, which requires a workaround.

You have to take care not to use more than 1000 workitems in one livedoc, in other case the loading times will be so long, that you get timeouts for them. Baseline comparisons and other oprations will be timeouted also.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I don't think that this solution scales well. The problem is that they don't have the memory being used entirely. I think that it has something to do with the architecture.

I think that we have plans to increase usage, although I do not have the details as to how. I've got some information from the Siemens colleagues and I see that we cannot improve too much, or in too many ways, due to limitations in the architecture. It means that we have to split our project and use something with fewer objects in it.

There are approximately ten people using this solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support for this solution is ok. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward, and there were not too many problems with it. The process took a few hours.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I know of some other solutions, but they are different. For example, I think that IBM Rational DOORS is much better for requirements engineering, but it lacks other capabilities from Polarion. Merck may be better. It seems nice and seems to have the same capabilities, but I only have limited experience with it.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to use less than one thousand work items in one LiveDoc. Otherwise, their experience may be poor. 

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.