Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

3SL Cradle vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

3SL Cradle
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of 3SL Cradle is 1.3%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 15.6%, up from 15.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Siegmar-Schuenke - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
JuanCarlos Lopez - PeerSpot reviewer
Defines, builds, tests and manages complex software systems
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

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."
"It is easier to produce documents using the platform."
"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."
"We worked with the web interface."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"A valuable feature from my side would be the comparison corporization."
"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."
 

Cons

"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"It is not a stable solution, as we had issues with shared licenses."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"Integration can be a little tricky if you're not aware of basic computer science or programming language."
"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."
"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."
"It is stable enough but if you would like to work with more requirement objects, then you will get timeouts."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
"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."
"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."
"The product's price is high."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Aerospace/Defense Firm
31%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
31%
Computer Software Company
13%
Healthcare Company
6%
Educational Organization
5%
 

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...
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...
What do you like most about Polarion Requirements?
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 work...
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...
 

Also Known As

Cradle
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about 3SL Cradle vs. Polarion Requirements and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.