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.
"I've never had a bug or a bug message that I needed to open a ticket for."
"The board has been a very valuable feature because it can be very simple for teams that are not technical. It can also be highly technical and have lots of data for teams that are technical. So we use it for both instances."
"In our organization, we use Jira for project management and usually use the Scrum project type. We might adjust the workflows and stages to better suit our needs, but we mostly use the default functionalities it offers to manage our projects."
"I found it super useful, as it is customizable for different teams and users."
"It is easy to integrate Jira within our current IT environment. Jira has connectors and supports various integration."
"The dashboard and reports tracking and the setup updates quickly, I am very impressed with those features. Additionally, it is user-friendly."
"One of the valuable features is traceability from requirements to test cases."
"Integration is good."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"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."
"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 solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"We worked with the web interface."
"The permissions can be challenging to get right."
"Stability is an area of concern and it needs improvement, otherwise, it's a good product."
"There are some minor quirks, such as zero-point stories not appearing in the portfolio scope."
"The performance and stability are visibly degrading since the database has been growing every year."
"Some small issues with stability."
"What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product."
"The CACD solutions on JIRA has some plugins, but they are not easily understandable or workable."
"Grid: It is really strange that there is no possibility to edit an item in the grid. You need to go inside, and even then, not all items are editable, so you need to switch to edit mode. That's too many clicks and switches."
"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."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
"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."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
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.
