One thing up front, because you would find it anyway. For a small team ReqView is cheaper: €440 (PRO) or €600 (TEAM) per user per year¹, against €708 per editor for Reqlio Team. Readers get a free read-only licence¹. The arithmetic, including where it turns, is further down.
When ReqView is the better choice
- You work offline, or data must stay on your own machines. ReqView's desktop apps work offline², and projects live on your own drive, network share, Git or SVN server⁸. Reqlio is hosted only; there is no on-premise or offline option.
- You want requirements in Git next to your code. ReqView commits projects as files and uses Git tags as baselines⁴. Reqlio has no Git integration.
- You need Jira, Azure DevOps or Enterprise Architect. ReqView TEAM integrates with all three¹. Reqlio has none of them today.
- You are one or two engineers. One PRO licence is €440 a year¹. Reqlio's smallest plan is two editors, €1,656 a year.
- Track record matters to your buyer. ReqView has been on the market for more than ten years and reports over 26,000 users¹¹. Reqlio is new and built by one engineer.
The comparison
Claims in the ReqView column are sourced; references are at the bottom of the page. Checked 3 October 2026 against ReqView 2.22.
| ReqView | Reqlio | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Published, and lower. PRO €440, TEAM €600 per user per year; ENTERPRISE €1,800 per floating client, minimum three¹ | Published. €59 and €99 per editor per month, billed annually (€708 and €1,188 a year) |
| Readers and reviewers | Read-only use is free on any project. Commenting needs PRO or above¹ | Free, including comments, votes and approval. Reviewers, approvers, viewers and supplier guests are not seats |
| Where it runs | Desktop apps for Windows, macOS, Linux, plus a web app. The web app has no offline mode and cannot collaborate over a network drive, Git or SVN² | Browser, for everyone. Hosted in Frankfurt. No offline mode |
| Several editors at once | Each document is locked for exclusive editing on the shared drive or in Git; editors work on different documents at the same time³⁴ | One shared database. No files to lock, commit or merge |
| Baselines | Yes. Project files saved to a baselines folder, or Git tags (TEAM), with side-by-side project compare³⁴⁵ | Yes. Baselines with drift against the active baseline and compare |
| Reviews and sign-off | Partial. Comments plus a status attribute you define (Draft, Ready, Reviewed, Approved, Released); approving is setting the status⁵ | Formal reviews. Rounds, reviewer-versus-approver roles, verdicts anchored to the reviewed version |
| Verification | Partial. Test cases are a document linked to requirements by verify links, with a status attribute; the dashboard shows the share passed⁷ | A module. Four methods, activities, campaigns, runs, coverage matrix, model philosophy |
| Risk and FMEA | Partial. An FMEA document template rating severity, probability and detectability 1–10⁶ | A module. 5×5 risk register and AIAG-VDA FMEA; failure modes escalate into the register |
| Lifecycle gates | Not listed in the plan comparison¹ | Yes. Gates with readiness and evidence |
| Standards templates | ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148, Volere, user stories, OWASP ASVS, FMEA. "ReqView does not provide any templates for industry specific standards"⁸ | Project templates for ECSS, IEC 62304, ISO 26262, EN 50126/50128 and INCOSE |
| AI assistance | AI quality checks against INCOSE and EARS rules and AI PDF import, sold as custom services at €1,200 per day⁹ | Every plan. AI quality checks and 13 AI actions, plus an MCP server for Claude |
| Integrations | Jira Cloud, Azure DevOps, Sparx EA on TEAM¹ | None of these. ReqIF and an MCP server |
| Interchange | Word, Excel, PDF, HTML, CSV from PRO; ReqIF from TEAM¹ | ReqIF, CSV, XLSX, Word and PDF on every plan |
What the table actually says. ReqView treats tests and risks as documents with attributes and links. That works, and it keeps ReqView simple. Reqlio treats them as engineering objects: a run has a result and evidence, a review has a verdict tied to a version. You feel the difference the first time someone asks "which tests in campaign 3 failed, and who signed off the fix?"
The price, worked through
A team of three engineers who write requirements and ten people who review them. Annual prices. Reqlio's are excluding VAT; ReqView's pricing page does not say¹.
| Case | ReqView | Reqlio Team |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewers only read | €1,320 (3 × PRO) or €1,800 (3 × TEAM). Readers are free¹ | €2,124 (3 × €708) |
| Reviewers comment in the tool | €5,720 (13 × PRO, the cheapest plan that can comment)¹ | €2,124. Reviewers are free |
| Floating licences | From €5,400 for three concurrent sessions, any number of named users¹ | Not offered |
| One engineer | €440 (1 × PRO)¹ | €1,656 (2-editor minimum, monthly) |
So: if review happens in a meeting and the tool only shows the document, ReqView costs less. With three editors, Reqlio costs less once two or more reviewers have to comment or sign off in the tool, and the gap grows with the review board. The free ReqView licence cannot edit a project with more than one document or 150 objects¹, so setting a status needs a paid licence too.
How you actually move
The path is ReqIF, which ReqView exports on TEAM and ENTERPRISE¹. ReqView writes each object's ID to ReqIF.ForeignID and headings to ReqIF.ChapterName, and can export each document to its own file¹⁰. That fits Reqlio's importer, which keys on ReqIF.ForeignID and imports one specification at a time.
What comes across
- The requirements, with ReqView's IDs as requirement IDs. A later re-import matches on them and updates rather than duplicates.
- The section structure and its nesting.
- Links inside one document, where the link type is one Reqlio recognises (satisfies, derives, refines and similar).
- Attributes you map in the preview step; attributes you don't map are kept as text on the requirement.
What does not
- Links between documents. Reqlio's importer keeps a link only when both ends are in the specification being imported. In ReqView, traceability usually runs between documents (the example project links SRS to NEEDS and TESTS to SRS⁷), so plan to re-create those links in Reqlio. This is the biggest piece of work in a ReqView migration.
- Attachments and embedded images. ReqView puts them in the .reqifz package¹⁰; Reqlio imports the ReqIF inside it and does not store the files.
- Tests and risks as objects. A TESTS or FMEA document imports as a specification of requirements, not as verification activities or FMEA rows. Rebuild them in the modules.
- History. The import brings the current state. Past changes stay in ReqView and your Git or SVN history.
On PRO there is no ReqIF export¹. The route is CSV, which carries IDs, text, rationale, status and verification fields but not hierarchy or links. Either way, import one real document, check the preview, and only then commit. The €1,500 pilot for regulated teams includes one migration.
Questions people ask before switching
ReqView is cheaper. Why pay more?
If your reviewers only read, don't. Pay more when the work around the requirements (verification runs and campaigns, review rounds with sign-off, FMEA, gates) is currently done outside the tool, or when reviewers need to comment and approve without a licence each. That is where Reqlio's price stops being higher.
We need to work offline, or keep data on our own servers.
Then stay on ReqView. Reqlio is a hosted service in Frankfurt (creoline GmbH, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, in firstcolo FRA4), one PostgreSQL database per customer. There is no offline or desktop version, and self-hosting is an Enterprise conversation rather than something you download.
You are one engineer. What happens if you stop?
It is the right question, and against a vendor with ten years behind it, a fair one. The answer is written down: ReqIF, XLSX and CSV export on every plan at any time; read-only access to your data for twelve months after cancellation; source-code escrow on Enterprise.
Sources
Every claim above about ReqView, with where it came from. Checked 3 October 2026.
- Eccam, ReqView pricing — prices per plan, floating minimum of 3; plan comparison (commenting from PRO; ReqIF, Jira, Azure DevOps, Sparx EA from TEAM; document exports from PRO); FAQ: free read-only licence for readers, free plan edit limit of 1 document or 150 objects, no permanent licence. VAT not stated.
- ReqView Documentation, Installation and licence plans — web and desktop apps; what the web app lacks.
- ReqView Documentation, Collaborate via shared drive — exclusive document locking; baselines as project files.
- ReqView Documentation, Collaborate via Git — document locks in the repository; baselines as Git tags; supported hosts.
- ReqView Documentation, Change management — compare projects; review workflow of comments and a status attribute.
- ReqView Documentation, FMEA template — FMEA as a document template, ratings 1–10.
- ReqView Documentation, Example project — TESTS, SRS and NEEDS documents and the links between them; share of passed test cases on the dashboard.
- ReqView Documentation, FAQs — data storage; available templates and the quoted statement on industry standards.
- Eccam, ReqView custom services — AI quality checks and AI data import as services; €1,200 per 8 hours.
- ReqView Documentation, Export to ReqIF — ID and heading attributes, attachments in the package, per-document export.
- Eccam, ReqView home page — "10+ years on the market", "26k+ users"; current release 2.22, 13 April 2026.
ReqView is a trademark of Eccam s.r.o. Reqlio is not affiliated with or endorsed by Eccam. Comparisons reflect publicly documented information on the date shown; check the sources before relying on them for a purchasing decision.
Try it against a real specification
Thirty days, every module and the AI included, no card. Export one ReqView document as ReqIF and see whether it holds up.