Polarion ALM Reviews

We primarily use this solution for requirement engineering. 

Our deployment is on a private cloud from Siemens. 

The interface for this solution needs to be made more user-friendly to provide a better user experience.

If we have too many work items in one LiveDoc then usage can be limited because the loading times are very slow.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the limitations removed.

There should be a better facility for importing, such as from an IBM Rational Doors document.

The configuration would be much simpler if it had limited functions for synchronizing with JIRA, for example.

The stability of this solution is not bad, but it could be better. If there are too many work items in one LiveDoc then usage is limited, which requires a workaround.

You have to take care not to use more than 1000 workitems in one livedoc, in other case the loading times will be so long, that you get timeouts for them. Baseline comparisons and other oprations will be timeouted also.

I don't think that this solution scales well. The problem is that they don't have the memory being used entirely. I think that it has something to do with the architecture.

I think that we have plans to increase usage, although I do not have the details as to how. I've got some information from the Siemens colleagues and I see that we cannot improve too much, or in too many ways, due to limitations in the architecture. It means that we have to split our project and use something with fewer objects in it.

There are approximately ten people using this solution.

Technical support for this solution is ok. 

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward, and there were not too many problems with it. The process took a few hours.

I know of some other solutions, but they are different. For example, I think that IBM Rational DOORS is much better for requirements engineering, but it lacks other capabilities from Polarion. Merck may be better. It seems nice and seems to have the same capabilities, but I only have limited experience with it.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to use less than one thousand work items in one LiveDoc. Otherwise, their experience may be poor. 

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

I use the on-prem deployment model. Our primary use case is for application life cycle management, DevOps, and all the application requirements.

You can see the work ticket and you can circulate that within the teams. You can define your flows, customize according to your needs, and you can create dashboards and create the reports according to your needs. The version is not a distributed version of those systems. I think after requiring the kit by Microsoft most of the parties who are already using different ALM tools, they are moving towards Azure DevOps. Microsoft should be dedicated to moving the teams, creating new features, and making the Azure DevOps most straight-form independent. I have been using Siemens Polarion for three years but I haven't found out a way that you can use it in your own methodology for content management systems. If you were to say that everything is integrated and it's a complete solution, I would say it's not.

The most important thing for them to improve should be platform-independent features. They should also provide extensive pipelines and release pipelines that we can define and we can work on. 

Another area of improvement is integration with external tools and external platforms like Linux, Mac, and other stuff. Most of the teams are basically moving towards faster development. Everything should be flexible. All the tasks you can see in AWS and Azure, you would just need to drag and drop and release into the pipeline.

Right now, if you can evaluate the tools, then I think that as for the cost differences and for the usability, and other things concerned, so I will rate AWS at the first, Azure second, and then Atlassian tools and then Siemens would be fourth or fifth. 

It has worked well. Communication, dashboarding, reporting, content management, workflows, and you are creating user stories and you'll communicate within teams creating different divisions, mapping, queuing; for these kinds of things, that is good.

Scalability is good. It's easy to expand it. 

The initial setup was straightforward as far as the installation and management. It's easy to establish, setup, and deploy. 

The deployment took two to three hours. 

I would rate it a five out of ten. I would like to see better integration and better extensivity of tasks. The costs are not proportionate to the features it offers. 

Polarion can be used typically for application lifecycle management. Typically it's used for requirement management, test case management, and defect tracking. 

The product is pretty stable.

The technical support is quite good.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The solution is not easy to use.

The configuration aspect of the solution is not easy. A person needs a lot of programming knowledge in order to successfully handle the job.

The cost of the product is quite high. They should work to bring it down a bit so it's not on the higher end of the market.

We've been using the solution for almost three years at this point.

We find the product to be very stable and reliable. However, there are a few issues with the stability that can still be ironed out.

We aren't really end-users as we're more of a consulting company. However, we do plan to continue to use it in the future.

The technical support is quite good. We've never had issues with their services in the past. We've been quite satisfied with them.

We are providing services for codeBeamer for companies that need someone who has knowledge about codeBeamer and can deploy codeBeamer. We deploy PTC Integrity, Polarion, IBM, CLM, and two other products as well. We have around nine to 10 products we use as a deployment. 

Typically, the installation process is quite straightforward and not too complex. However, there are instances where it can get a bit tricky.

Typically, we provide consulting for deployment. We're the consulting company that customers use when they need assistance with deployment. We do the installation for most of our customers as well as the basic configuration so that clients can be ready to use the application.

It's a pretty expensive solution. It's one of the most expensive solutions out there.

We're a solution provider, so we don't directly use this product. We came across this product and have deployed it for our end client. We are a deployment and development partner for various clients in the automotive industry.

We have a specific partnership with the vendor in Germany. We are not directly related to Polarion. We're a service provider for their vendor.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend this product to other companies, of course, depending on their requirements.

Overall, I would rate it at an eight out of ten.

Our customers use ALM for different product implementations and tracking product activities. We are service providers of Polarion. I'm an administrator of ALM and we implement this solution for our customers.  

Polarion is 

The solution offers good integration. 

Test management could be improved because there's only a manual process available for now.

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable.

This solution is scalable, it can be scaled up or down according to customer requirements. 

The technical support is good, we usually get a response within a few hours. 

Positive

The initial setup is not too complicated or challenging. We have four or five customers who have implemented Polarion and around 1,000 users on a daily basis. We are also able to provide server maintenance services if our customers wish.

In comparison to Jira, Polarion provides many more features in a single tool. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10.