CLOUD | DATA CENTER AND SERVER
Comparison of easeRequirements Cloud and Data Center Features
Summary
easeRequirements Cloud already supports most core functionality available in the Data Center edition while introducing several modern architectural improvements. Cloud uses Jira-native work items for folders and structures, enabling workflows, history tracking, automation, custom fields, and deeper Jira integration that were not possible in Data Center. The Cloud architecture also provides improved search performance, integrated tree search capabilities, automatic baseline generation, and enhanced auditability. Extensive REST APIs and Jira Automation support offer flexible alternatives for advanced use cases and integrations. Most remaining differences are roadmap-related rather than permanent platform limitations, with continuous feature alignment actively ongoing.
Details
The easeRequirements application has two different implementations, one for Jira Cloud and the other for Jira Data Center (DC). In general, both implementations have the same or very similar functionality. However, a few features are not yet implemented in Cloud and in some cases, there are differences in functionality between Cloud and DC. The following table lists the features and describes any differences in the state of implementation. This page will be regularly updated.
Feature | easeRequirements | easeRequirements | Comment | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Folder Structures - Organize requirements in a hierarchical folder structure. | Adding existing Jira issues and reorganizing them via drag-and-drop in the project tree is available in both editions. Cut/paste of issues between projects is not yet available in Cloud. Cloud currently only supports Drag&Drop for moving issues, Cut&Paste is not yet supported. As a workaround for Cut&Paste between projects, the copy-paste operation can be used to create a reference copy in the target project, after which the original can be removed. |
| ||
| Both editions provide a tree view for organizing requirements in a hierarchical folder structure. In DC, folders are a built-in data structure. In Cloud, folders are Jira issues of a specified type, which means they additionally carry fields, an assignee, a workflow, history, and link relations (see Folder History and Status). The Jira administrator must specify the issue type used for folders as part of the easeRequirements configuration, see Specify Folder Issue Type. User can configure more fields to be displayed in the project tree than in the DC edition. | |||
| Cloud provides both a tree search (which highlights matching issues inside the tree) and a filter using plain text or JQL. DC provides Basic, JQL, Jira Filter, and Folder filter options, which only reduce the visible set. Cloud also offers significantly better search and filter performance thanks to a different underlying tree implementation. A small number of advanced DC query functions (such as link-related filters) are not yet available in Cloud and are on the roadmap, see Advanced Queries. | |||
| Since folders are issues in Cloud, they have all the functionality of Jira issues, including history, workflow status, custom fields, and link relations — none of which is available for folders in DC. To revert structural changes, Cloud combines two mechanisms:
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
|
| ||
Detail View - Display requirement details. | Both editions provide a detail view of the selected requirement. In DC, sections are presented as tabs; in Cloud, the same content is shown as separate sections (tab support is on the roadmap). Cloud presents multi-line and rich-text fields (description, environment, other rich-text custom fields) in their own sections for better readability, whereas DC places them inside the top section apart from the description. | |||
Reading View - Display requirements as if they were in a document. | Both editions provide equivalent functionality. The look and feel is due to the underlying platform different. | |||
Tabular View - Display requirements as a table, suitable for reviewing large numbers of requirements. | Both editions provide equivalent functionality. The look and feel is due to the underlying platform different. | |||
Version Control - View detailed, comparable change histories (revisions) to track the evolution of your requirements. | Both editions provide equivalent functionality. Note that the cloud version uses the Jira change log history since issue related data is not stored separately as in DC. | |||
Baselines - Snapshot current data to keep track of milestones and support reviews. |
| Both editions provide baselines, including signatures. Important differences:
| ||
Artifact Reuse - Reduce time to market by reusing requirements from existing projects. | Both editions support requirement reuse via copy-and-paste. DC offers extensive customization, including folder structure, fields, sub-tasks, attachments, and links, with the option for administrators to define predefined reuse configurations. Cloud supports a reduced set today: folder structure, attachments, and link relations from parents to children. Users can additionally select which link types are included and decide whether links pointing outside the copied set should be transferred to the new copies. The original and copied requirement can be linked, and a preview visualization shows how the copy will proceed. Predefined reuse configurations are not yet available in Cloud. | |||
Import - Import requirements in ReqIF format. | With easeRequirements ULTIMATE edition, DC allows importing any ReqIF file, provided a ReqIF mapping is configured. easeRequirements Cloud today supports ReqIF import from DC as part of the migration; a general ReqIF import for Cloud is in development. Early access is available on request. | |||
Export - Export requirements in various formats. |
| Both editions provide equivalent functionality. |
| |
| A DC adinistratore can use a tree structure export for manual migration from DC to Cloud. With easeRequirements ULTIMATE edition DC provides export in ReqIF format with a ReqIF mapping. Cloud does not currently provide export in this format, development ongoing. | |||
| DC provides Word export from all of its views. Cloud currently provides Word export from the project tree view, using the same templates as DC. A small number of template terms are not yet supported in Cloud (for example, the Boolean, Duration, fields, metadata and properties terms); these are explicitly marked in the template documentation. Confluence pages cannot be exported from Cloud due to a limitation of the Jira Cloud platform, although Confluence pages can still be referenced and displayed in the tree structure. | |||
| DC provides a template based Excel format in its various views. The administrator can provide different export templates. Cloud currently only provides export for the Tree and Baseline. The Coverage View comes with a predetermined Excel format. | |||
| DC provides export in XML format in all of its views. Cloud does not currently provide export in this format. |
| ||
Microsoft Excel Integration - Seamless roundtrip integration with MS Excel. | Both editions provide equivalent roundtrip integration with MS Excel via the Excel plug-in. One operational difference: when defining a folder path for a new issue in the Excel template, DC creates intermediate folders if they do not yet exist. In Cloud, target folders must already exist (because folders are themselves issues that must be created first). The recommended workaround is to create the folder on a line above the issue that uses it, in the same Excel run. | |||
Traceability Matrix - Visualize and analyze the relationships within requirements as well as other sorts of issues. | Both editions provide equivalent functionality. | |||
Coverage Analysis - Detect gaps in the coverage of your requirements across the hierarchy. | Both editions provide equivalent functionality. Cloud offers the option to structure the view using an tree as source (for the first coverage column). | |||
Suspect Logic - Discover requirements that need review when related requirements or other sorts of issues have been changed. |
| DC supports suspect logic directly. Cloud does not yet directly support it; in the meantime, suspect monitoring can be implemented with native Jira automation, which offers a high degree of flexibility. Direct support of suspect logic is on the roadmap. | ||
Advanced Queries - Use JQL to query the easeRequirements specific data structures. |
| DC extends JQL with ‘query functions’. Cloud accomplishes the same purpose using Jira issue properties — most notably the R4JPath property, addressed by project key plus issue key. Right-clicking on a folder in the tree opens the Jira issue navigator with the corresponding R4JPath query already populated. Cloud currently provides equivalents for path queries (everything under a folder), parent queries (direct children only), and baseline membership. Cloud equivalents are not yet available for changes between baselines, has-suspect-link, has-link, and has-link-to-project. | ||
REST API - Integrate and extend easeRequirements using the extensive API. | Both editions provide equivalent REST API coverage. The APIs themselves differ because the Cloud app architecture communicates with Jira entirely through APIs (rather than through internal calls as in DC), which means the Cloud REST surface is broader than DC’s. | |||
Data Center to Cloud Migration |
|
| The current migration path is the Jira Cloud Migration Assistant (JCMA), replacing the older export/import approach.
|