We performed a comparison between Helix ALM 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 most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility."
"Helix ALM enables users to build, make efficient and effective decisions, and use least-cost methods for maximum benefit, as fast as possible. They allow you to see and visualize your configuration."
"The tool offers high stability."
"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."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"We worked with the web interface."
"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"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."
"It would be great to see Perforce's strategy is for implementing intelligence into the process via AI or ML. It's not clearly defined, at least not to my knowledge."
"Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it."
"The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"If we have more than one thousand work items in one live-book then it becomes almost unusable."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"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."
"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."
"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."
Helix ALM is ranked 7th in Application Requirements Management with 7 reviews while Polarion Requirements is ranked 3rd in Application Requirements Management with 11 reviews. Helix ALM is rated 6.4, while Polarion Requirements is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Helix ALM writes "Helix ALM is insanely configurable, with great traceability, and flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polarion Requirements writes "Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems". Helix ALM is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, SmartBear TestComplete and Jama Connect, whereas Polarion Requirements is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Jama Connect, Jira and IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation. See our Helix ALM 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.