Polarion Requirements Reviews

Name: Polarion Requirements
Brand: Siemens
Rating: 3.7 (14 reviews)

3.7 out of 5

14 reviews
78% willing to recommend

924 followers

What is Polarion Requirements?

Polarion REQUIREMENTS is designed from the ground for highly effective, transparent and secure collaboration, while teams have the option to work in their familiar environments.

Get the Polarion Requirements Buyer's Guide and find out what your peers are saying about Polarion Requirements, Jira, IBM DOORS and more!

Polarion Requirements is the #3 ranked solution in top Application Requirements Management solutions. PeerSpot users give Polarion Requirements an average rating of 7.4 out of 10. Polarion Requirements is most commonly compared to Jira: Polarion Requirements vs Jira. Polarion Requirements is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 65% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a manufacturing company, accounting for 31% of all views.

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

June 2025

Get the report

Helped 859,687 peers since 2012

Featured Polarion Requirements reviews

Effendy Mohamed

Principal Instrument and Control at Petronas

The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor. The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy. Someone who has a good IT background would be able to use it, but a regular person who just knows more or has always been dealing with Microsoft Word might find it difficult to use that system. Users need skills to work with this solution and also need to have some foundation of why those technical integrations and cross-referencing have to be done in such a way through systematization, which makes it difficult and not straightforward through the visibility of the user interface.

Read full review

JuanCarlos Lopez

Chief Technology Officer at Maval

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

Read full review

Michael Sanchez

ALM Change & Deployment at MS Consulting

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.

Read full review

Polarion Requirements mindshare

As of July 2025, the mindshare of Polarion Requirements in the Application Requirements Management category stands at 14.4%, down from 15.4% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management

PeerResearch reports based on Polarion Requirements reviews

Type	Title	Date
Category	Application Requirements Management	Jul 2, 2025	Download
Product	Reviews, tips, and advice from real users	Jul 2, 2025	Download
Comparison	Polarion Requirements vs Jira	Jul 2, 2025	Download
Comparison	Polarion Requirements vs IBM DOORS	Jul 2, 2025	Download
Comparison	Polarion Requirements vs Jama Connect	Jul 2, 2025	Download

Title	Rating	Mindshare	Recommending
Jira	4.1	15.4%	91%	274 interviews Add to research
IBM DOORS	4.0	32.5%	88%	55 interviews Add to research

Valuable Features

Polarion Requirements' valuable features include requirement and test management integration, link tracing, work item specifications, and workflow processes. Users appreciate its user-friendly and configurable nature, making it ideal for collaboration, folder organization, and report generation. Flexibility through APIs facilitates seamless data exchange with tools like IBM DOORS and Jira. Traceability, document generation, and electronic signatures enhance its utility. Its ability to manage various file types while maintaining visibility and historical tracking is highlighted.

"The most beneficial features of Polarion Requirements for traceability include the traceability function and also the historical and matchmaking or cross-referencing, which was very good."
"The most beneficial features of Polarion Requirements for traceability include the traceability function and also the historical and matchmaking or cross-referencing, which was very good."
"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."

Room for Improvement

Polarion Requirements needs improvements in user interface friendliness and usability. Licensing complexity and performance issues with large work items are concerns. Enhancements are needed for workflow flexibility, import features, and test management capabilities. Integration challenges can occur without a programming background. Better document tracking and comparison, as well as risk analysis features, are desired. Some users experience difficulties with stability due to shared licenses, and traceability and bulk editing present challenges.

"The user configuration had some issues; you need to know all the details, so it's not really friendly for those who are not IT savvy."
"The areas of Polarion Requirements that have room for improvement include usability, and the user interface, which was a little bit poor."
"In my opinion, the main area for improvement in Polarion Requirements is its user interface. It should be easier for engineers to understand how it works, as many features are not very easily understandable for end-users."

Pricing

Polarion Requirements users report that pricing is somewhat high yet comparable to similar solutions. It requires an initial purchase with ongoing maintenance fees. Costs range between 50 to 60 euros, with additional investment possibly at 68 euros per user. The pricing model is flexible, offering various licenses based on user roles, providing cost efficiency by not requiring full functionality for every user. The solution is considered efficient for managing complex products.

"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"The pricing model is flexible. You don't have to pay for the full functionalities. And it's a one-time investment for the licenses. You purchase what you need and then can work with that."
"I believe the cost is subjective. It seems a bit pricey, but it depends on your perspective. To provide some context, I compared the prices with GitLab and Jira. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Jira's prices. However, GitLab costs around 40 euros, and DeepLab, which I recently discovered, also falls in a similar price range. I'm not sure about DeepLab's features or interface improvements, as they might have been implementing requirements management over the past six months. In contrast, Polarion costs around 50 to 60 euros based on the 2021 prices I have. While it may seem a bit expensive, it's worth considering whether the additional investment, perhaps around 68 euros per user, is justified. It might appear costly at first glance, but it's essential to acknowledge that it can greatly streamline your work processes."

Popular Use Cases

Polarion Requirements is primarily used for managing custom product development, systems engineering, and department management. Users include test engineers for generating test cases, companies for internal documentation and contract requirements, and for tracking requirements and deliveries. It's effective in industries like automotive and aerospace, offering end-to-end traceability. Users leverage its flexibility for drafting, tracking, and planning requirements, utilizing features like LiveDocs for comprehensive reports valuable for top management.

Service and Support

Customers express mixed experiences with Polarion Requirements' customer service. Some users find technical support knowledgeable and responsive, while others highlight slow response times and unresolved issues. Issues with licenses have been problematic, and timely assistance is sometimes lacking. However, many acknowledge helpful and attentive service, especially from the vendor in France. Some prefer Siemens Help Desk despite delays. Prompt responses are noted, though quality isn't always high, with a Siemens rating around six out of ten.

Deployment

Initial setup of Polarion Requirements varies in complexity. Some find it straightforward, taking a few hours, while others face challenges with templates and data migration. Deployment often requires a dedicated team or engineer. Familiarity with technical guidelines like INCOSE and EARS is essential. Training is crucial, as understanding features and processes can be difficult. It's easier with minimal configurations but challenging for complex projects. A user-friendly interface is beneficial.

Scalability

Polarion Requirements is perceived as scalable by various entities. Some note its ability to accommodate numerous users, comparing favorably to other tools. Others recognize limits in scaling, observing performance issues like slowness or timeouts when resources are pushed. However, companies with large user bases report satisfactory performance, especially with the cloud-based option. Ratings vary, highlighting its scalability in technical aspects but pointing out user interface complexities that might pose challenges for less experienced users.

Stability

Most users find Polarion Requirements stable. Some note it handles a large number of work items with difficulty, leading to timeouts. Occasional stability issues are mentioned, such as problems with shared licenses. Rating-wise, some give it an eight out of ten, while others rate it a seven or nine due to areas needing refinement. Stability is generally considered high and reliable without significant issues encountered.

These insights are based on the in-depth reviews provided by peers to help you make a better buying decision.

Download our Polarion Requirements Buyer's Guide for additional reliable information.

Review data by company size

By reviewers

By visitors reading reviews

Top industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

31%

Computer Software Company

11%

Healthcare Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Educational Organization

Transportation Company

Comms Service Provider

Construction Company

Government

Energy/Utilities Company

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

University

Engineering Company

Outsourcing Company

Non Profit

Logistics Company

Performing Arts

Real Estate/Law Firm

Insurance Company

Media Company

Pharma/Biotech Company

Legal Firm

Recreational Facilities/Services Company

Wholesaler/Distributor

Hospitality Company

Non Tech Company

Religious Institution

Wellness & Fitness Company

Compare Polarion Requirements with alternative products

Learn more about Polarion Requirements

Polarion Requirements customers

NetSuite, Ottobock, Zumtobel Group, Kªster Automotive GmbH, Sirona Dental Systems, LifeWatch, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PHOENIX CONTACT Electronics GmbH, Metso Corporation