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

PTC Integrity Requirements Connector vs Polarion Requirements comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

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
PTC Integrity Requirements ...
Ranking in Application Requirements Management
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Requirements Management category, the mindshare of Polarion Requirements is 16.9%, up from 15.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PTC Integrity Requirements Connector is 3.1%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Requirements Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Polarion Requirements16.9%
PTC Integrity Requirements Connector3.1%
Other80.0%
Application Requirements Management
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Sandipan Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
Electronic System Product Specialist at Cummins Inc.
A requirement management tool that provides a good technical support along with stability
I see that when we just define the configuration management part, it is a completely different case. Somehow in our organization or current profile, we are not built to make that linkage between that requirement and the configuration management part. So, if it is making some kind of accountability there or some kind of configuration linkage, then it would be a little bit helpful. The training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user. At least for the new commerce may be. If it is possible, they can make it module-wise for the PTC Integrity team. To give along with the PTC channel itself, then it might be a little bit helpful. For example, as in the MATLAB that we are using, users have ample amount of use cases there and resources by which they can explore the learning part also. So, if it is possible for PTC Integrity directly to get that one, it will be helpful for the new users.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"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."
"Polarion Requirements is a really great product despite the limitations I mentioned and the price which is getting more and more expensive."
"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."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"I like the way this solution is structured."
"Its flexibility and APIs are the most valuable."
"It is a stable solution...I rate the support a nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"The one thing I would mention is the license policy is a little bit difficult."
"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."
"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."
"The platform's review process for the documents could be better."
"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."
"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 training material for PTC Integrity should be made a little bit easier or more useful for the user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Requirements Management solutions are best for your needs.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
28%
Healthcare Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
Transportation Company
4%
Manufacturing Company
34%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
University
5%
Comms Service Provider
5%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Polarion Requirements?
I purchased Polarion Requirements directly from Siemens Benelux, but if you have any ideas to get a license at a better price, we are quite interested in discussing that.
What needs improvement with Polarion Requirements?
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....
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
PTC IRC
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NetSuite, Ottobock, Zumtobel Group, Kªster Automotive GmbH, Sirona Dental Systems, LifeWatch, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), PHOENIX CONTACT Electronics GmbH, Metso Corporation
Cummins, Continental
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Atlassian, Jama and others in Application Requirements Management. Updated: February 2026.
884,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.