3SL Cradle vs Polarion Requirements comparison

3SL and Siemens are both solutions in the Application Requirements Management category. 3SL is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.0, while Siemens is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.1. 3SL holds a 1.4% mindshare in ARM, compared to Siemens’s 15.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of 3SL users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 84% of Siemens users who would recommend it.

3SL Cradle

Read 3 3SL Cradle reviews

369 Views
220 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Polarion Requirements

Read 13 Polarion Requirements reviews

2,716 Views
2,281 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

3SL Cradle

Polarion Requirements

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Polarion Requirements and 3SL Cradle compete in the requirements management domain. Polarion Requirements has an advantage in pricing and support, making it appealing for budget-conscious buyers, while 3SL Cradle is preferred by those valuing functionality due to its feature richness.

Features: Polarion Requirements includes real-time collaboration, seamless integration with ALM tools, and a robust platform for managing requirements. 3SL Cradle offers comprehensive traceability, customizable processes, and detailed system modeling.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Polarion Requirements offers a cloud-based deployment model with streamlined onboarding. 3SL Cradle supports both on-premise and cloud deployments, offering flexible configurations. Polarion provides efficient customer support, whereas 3SL Cradle offers dedicated service and personalized support plans.

Pricing and ROI: Polarion Requirements is competitive in pricing, providing satisfactory ROI for those focusing on essential features. 3SL Cradle involves a higher initial setup cost but offers potentially higher ROI through its advanced functionalities and flexible deployment options.

To learn more, read our detailed 3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,475 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

3SL Cradle

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

10th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

9.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Polarion Requirements

Ranking in Application Requirements Management

3rd

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of 3SL Cradle is 1.4%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.1%, up from 15.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Requirements Management

Featured Reviews

Siegmar-Schuenke

Operation manager at OpenCage

Flexible solution that manages all your needs

I mainly use 3SL Cradle to manage the requirements from service projects 3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately. 3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities. In the next release, I would like 3SL Cradle to be…

Read full review

Michael Sanchez

ALM Change & Deployment at MS Consulting

Useful for Application Lifecycle Management and has good collaboration features

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

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"3SL Cradle's most valuable feature is its flexibility in managing all your needs immediately."

"We worked with the web interface."

"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."

"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."

"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."

"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."

"The solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."

"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."

More Polarion Requirements pros

Cons

"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."

"The risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."

"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."

"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."

"The usability of the solution should also be improved."

"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."

"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."

"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."

More Polarion Requirements cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."

"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."

"It is expensive but not for what it is. It is just the right price for what it is. Its price is also similar to other solutions."

"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."

"The product's price is high."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

849,475 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Aerospace/Defense Firm

32%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Energy/Utilities Company

13%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

30%

Computer Software Company

11%

Healthcare Company

Aerospace/Defense Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with 3SL Cradle?

The support is consistent globally. However, heavier support is provided in certain locations. Improvement in support is necessary. Assistance is available to acquire information and utilize userna...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering 3SL Cradle?

If you have time to take some courses about 3SL Cradle, it will give you more time in the project to familiarize yourself with Cradle. I recommend it, but you need to do it within a very short time...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for 3SL Cradle?

The price is similar to IBM RATIONAL DOORS.

See all answers

What do you like most about Polarion Requirements?

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polarion Requirements?

I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?

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 under...

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM DOORS vs 3SL Cradle

Compared 68% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs 3SL Cradle

Compared 32% of the time

More 3SL Cradle Competitors

IBM DOORS vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 57% of the time

Jama Connect vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 21% of the time

IBM DOORS Next vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 10% of the time

Jira vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 9% of the time

Helix ALM vs Polarion Requirements

Compared 2% of the time

More Polarion Requirements Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Requirements Management

April 2025

Download 3SL Cradle product report

Buyer's Guide

Polarion Requirements

April 2025

Download Polarion Requirements product report

Also Known As

Cradle

No data available

Overview

Cradle is a requirements management and systems engineering tool that integrates your entire project lifecycle in one, massively scalable, integrated, multi-user product.

3SL

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.

Siemens

Sample Customers

NASA, In-Depth Engineering Corporation, Avibras

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

Buyer's Guide

3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements

April 2025

Free Report: 3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements

Find out what your peers are saying about 3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,475 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our 3SL Cradle 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.