What advice do you have for others considering Polarion ALM?

The planning features focused on agile methodology, including sprint planning and micro-planning, are very effective. However, more structured planning is also possible, which could benefit users who are working with a standard waterfall methodology. Generative AI could provide significant benefits in the future. It would greatly help evaluate the quality of requirements, define tests, and ensure compliance with rules, such as those for system engineering. They have two people working with the support. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The tool helps because our company gets more visibility in a very rigid manner, so people can just not reject a bug if we don't approve it, and we can control everything. All the tests needed to be provided can be executed. I can review all the tests. Reviewing the tests can be done before my team executes them, and then we have a strict connection with all the other staff about the product to figure out if we are able to meet the requirements and get good metrics with proper visibility. I just use the product according to what my boss says he wants to use it for, but I don't know how much of it can be modified for our work. My company has some partnerships with the vendor, so sometimes we have a call with them. I am just the tool's user, so I don't have to do any integrations. I just use it to identify any impact of the configurations. I recommend the tool to others. It is a good tool for me. I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Most of my customers use the solution on-prem and in the cloud, and I rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend Polarion ALM. However, users should consider the kind of environment they are working in and which services they plan to integrate. This will play a major role in their overall experience with the software.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. My requirements from the tool are not fulfilled with Polarion ALM, so I have to use multiple tools for that. Integration and scalability are possible with the solution, but I think Polarion has to be developed in a way that supports the software development area at a very low level, in the case of which the price should not be too high so that it becomes easy for people to use it. Compared to Azure DevOps and other development tools available in the market, Polarion ALM is a bit costlier. I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

It is the best tool, but you would need training. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution has some advantages but has some inconveniences as well. I know it's beyond the project. The integration is quite good. The weak point of doing this way is not having a full database to rely on another database. Also, the customers used it for a long time and were happy with the solution. To convince a new customer who asks me which are the best tools, and if such incidents had happened in the past, then it was my job to answer them. Hence, I wouldn't recommend Polarion. However, I can change my mind since I currently see things like Guru for a project in Geneva for implants. I don't have enough experience to give a suggestion on this, and I'm talking about it based on the feedback from my customers who have used Polarion and Aligned Elements. If we are talking about this parameter, I have more experience with Orcanos, the medical device requirement database, from the software scanners, which an Italian company does, and my part in it was just a nightmare. So I will make a very bad note on Orcanos, but you can find on the internet a lot of capacity between Polario and Orcanos. Orcanos is one of the worst ones. I worked three years before on Orcanos, so I would not say anything bad about Polarion. My rating of the product depends on the size of the company and how many engineers and software engineers are inside the company, along with the IT resources that they have. There are a lot of parameters for me to advise my customer. I can say that Polarion is good for you, and I will propose an open source for you. For you, I will propose Greenlight Guru, which is more expensive. The learning curve is also longer. We need to consider who will use it and for why, and with which competencies. But for implants, I will recommend Greenlight Guru because the quality of the reporting is better. Suppose I can take generic requirements because, if I have to give advice to one of my customers, I will take into account much more parameters. In general, where I would say Polarion is not doing evaluations the right way, especially considering things like who is on top of the evolution. I would say evolution is the main parameter. So I really rank Polarion lower than Greenlight Guru because of such reasons. To my customer, I say also each of the solutions provides QMS, and you can have a good idea of the requirements of the company by looking at their blogs. Greenlight Guru is really looking for evolution, and because of the evolution in medical devices, it's very fast. I would take this as a top parameter, so I recommend Greenlight Guru in this case. You will also have to show the software validation to the FTA for the implant. It's an investment, in this case. They have to invest time. They have to know someone that knows things like Greenlight Guru even though their learning curve is quite slow, but having the people that know already together with the software makes sense. It's kind of a strategy as well. I rate the overall product a five out of ten.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using at this time. If you do a good job at customization, it will help with consistency and assist with the traceability of the products. I wouldn't recommend the product to people who need a task management or planning tool. That's not this product as well. As an ALM tool, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

I give the solution a seven out of ten. The solution requires around six people to deploy and maintain. I have been using the solution from the days when it was C Pine. Before I joined my current company, I was in an accounting company for 22 years, and we used Helix as a standard. I don't know where the pricing sits today, but at that time we could put a cloud instance of shared license for about $2,000 a seat. For what the solution included the price was very attractive. I recommend Helix ALM over Polarion ALM for larger organizations because the price, power, and scalability are better. I've worked in Helix with hundreds of users and the solution was very good.

I give the solution a seven out of ten. There are six users in the organization using the solution and three of them use it daily. This solution is used when we have projects based on web applications. I suggest anyone thinking about using the solution familiarize themselves with the tool first by using a quick start guide. There are similar solutions out there such as Jira and Confluence, but they are not as good.

I'm a consultant for customers. I'm using Polarion ALM for my customer. In particular, I provide the service to my customer using Polarion ALM. In terms of how Polarion ALM is deployed, for Japanese customers, it's on-premises because of confidentiality and sensitive information. Many Japanese do not believe in the security of cloud deployment. My rating for Polarion ALM is eight out of ten.

I rate Polarion ALM nine out of 10.

Overall, I would rate Polarion ALM eight out of 10, but it depends on your intended use. If you are limiting the scope to just a few uses, it can go all the way to 10. But if you want to use it for all the aspects of the development process, my rating would go down to six. I would also point out that some other tools are easier to administer. For example, there are tools where the administrator has to do very little. In Polarion, the admin needs to make some configuration changes and modify access rights at every level. But in other tools, these configuration changes trickle down automatically on their own without the need to double-check several places before you can finally say it's all done. So administration-wise, they can improve. And the out-of-the-box features should all work as needed without a lot of tinkering. To people considering Polarion, I would say that you need to do a thorough, extended evaluation. Make sure that you have an initial team of at least 10 or so people before moving ahead with a company-wide deployment. Of course, this depends on your company's scale and how many projects you want to support. If you're working on one project at a time, then one person can handle most of the stuff.

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.

It's been the only ALM tool that I have used. As far as capabilities and learning the system, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

If you're a beginner to Life Cycle Requirements Engineering in general, I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with the basics of requirement engineering in order to gain independence of the tool itself. Eventually, when you start using Polarion, start from the very beginning. Even though the tutorials are out-of-date, they are still helpful. We also used our vendors as our trainers and teachers. We booked them for three or four days to get a proper introduction to Polarion. Starting off with an expert is a really good idea, it will cost you, but it will save you so much time. One expert instructor can teach more than 20 workers at once, saving you hours or even weeks. I would rate Polarion really quite high. We were happy with it, and nowadays, without this type of tool, it's not possible to develop medical devices independently of software or hardware. I would give Polarion a rating of nine out of 10.

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.

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.