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

3SL Cradle vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

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
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
9.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Polarion Requirements
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
4th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of 3SL Cradle is 2.3%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 16.3%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Polarion Requirements16.3%
3SL Cradle2.3%
Other81.4%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

Siegmar-Schuenke - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
reviewer2798628 - PeerSpot reviewer
Project Manager at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Comprehensive traceability has supported regulated projects but review workflows still need improvement
The ability to manage requirements through the whole project life is somewhat unclear. We are not using the ability to track all requirements through the whole project life for analytics very much. We have a way to easily find all the requirements of a complex product, even if they are spread over different Polarion Requirements projects. We do not have any issues in that area, but we are not really using the analytics part of Polarion Requirements. I am satisfied with the integration capabilities for Polarion Requirements, but it depends. We encountered a lot of issues with the integration with Enterprise Architect. We were in contact with Lemon Tree company, which provides support for that integration, but we eventually decided to develop our own plugins for Polarion Requirements. That is unfortunate, but we are not really happy with their implementation. There are things that are going really well, but alongside this, there are also things that are not yet implemented, which is quite annoying for us. The main point for improvement or lack of functions that I would like to address in Polarion Requirements is really about the review process, which is a bit too limited. When we are developing complex products, we have to review big life documents or a set of work items, but there are a lot of issues with that. For example, very simple things: if you select a word and not a space in the document, you are not able to add comments, and it is not user-friendly. If you know that you have to put the cursor and not select the word, that is something people can live with, but for newcomers, it is frustrating. They will ask questions such as 'I cannot add a comment about this word' or for a selection of text. That is something annoying. You can do that in a simple Word document, but not in Polarion Requirements. Also, the ability to review a table or generated dynamic content is not possible in Polarion Requirements. For example, if you generate automatically a list of tests, you cannot click on the second one; you can only click at the beginning of the generated sections. I am somewhat satisfied with Polarion Requirements' functionality, but I feel a lack of certain functions regarding the review, which is a bit too limited. The review process is the main pain point for me, especially since we are in a highly regulated environment where reviews are crucial for us.

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."
"I would say there is value in how powerful, configurable, and user-friendly it is."
"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."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"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 worked with the web interface."
"Polarion Requirements' most valuable features are link tracing, book entry, and sequence training features."
"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 solution is especially great for organizing folders effectively."
 

Cons

"3SL Cradle could be improved with better support for SysML functionalities."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"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."
"One thing to consider is increased flexibility in terms of workflow configuration."
"Polarion Requirement needs to have a feature where we can track changes and compare documents. Currently, we do it manually."
"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 risk assessment functionality needs improvement, like FMEA risk management."
"The usability of the solution should also be improved."
"I am somewhat satisfied with Polarion Requirements' functionality, but I feel a lack of certain functions regarding the review, which is a bit too limited."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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 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."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"The product's price is high."
"Polarion Requirements is a little pricey."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
25%
Aerospace/Defense Firm
23%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Educational Organization
5%
Manufacturing Company
29%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
Transportation Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

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?
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 al...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Cradle
No data available
 

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: February 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.