Jira Reviews

• Agile, scrum project/sprint planning
• Bug tracking
• Workflows which help track the current state of tasks.

• The organisation is more flexible and agile.
• Tasks are easier to track. 
• Generally faster and more focused.

• Sprint planning
• Overviews over tasks and which assignees are doing what
• Specific workflows for projects.

• Add relation for workload estimation between stories and subtasks
• Linking to Confluence could be implemented. At the moment links can only be created from Confluence to JIRA, not the other way round.

Requirements management.

It enabled us to track and manage product commitments over the entire enterprise.

One form for each feature/item.

Better ability to add numbers in ad hoc queries and search results, e.g., total development cost estimates.

We didn't use a different solution.

Jira is the best project and defect management tool. It works very well for all types of software methodologies or cycles. Communication is very clear to the whole team members. My team relies on this software to keep track of what we are doing. It has lots of nice features that we use such as to link issues to one another, link tickets, put labels of versions to be released, and story points. As a QA person, I also use the filters a lot to find issues that are assigned to me or have been reported by me.

JIRA has helped us to organize our projects and keep them organized. It has also allowed a great deal of transparency into the development process for management which has greatly reduced the workload on project managers by automating some of the report generation necessary to show progress.

This software helps us to follow the process the team agreed to and see the progress on issue and sprint level. With the help of this tool, we will be able to track the progress of the issue and sprint.

The reports and dashboards do not provide for reports in a graphical way. The tickets cannot be simultaneously assigned to two or more users.

Jira makes life easy — best tool to use in agile projects!

This product enabled us to grow and not lose productivity in the process. We were able to maintain a good line of sight to what teams were producing and which ones were on track and which teams were off track.

I have not used any different solution.

I have used this tool as an in-house one.

Team level agile project management.

Agile teams work with this tool. However, scaled agile support of this tool is limited.

• Dashboard possibility
• JQL query
• Workflow management.

Tree view of linked issues.

It is easy to assign books, story styles, move across platforms and to different stakeholders while using this platform.

It has an easy UI that can easily plug-in to every level.

The CACD solutions on JIRA has some plugins, but they are not easily understandable or workable. 

It is definitely a stable product.

The scalability is fine.  

Tech support is good. 

We had a JIRA administrator help us with the setup, as well as an administration team. It took a bit of time to integrate the JIRA to our system.

In comparison to other solutions on the market, it is cost-effective. 

We looked at Micro Focus ALM vs JIRA, but it was quite expensive in comparison.

It is a user-friendly solution that is simple to use. 

Some of the features that are most important to me of JIRA Agile are the sprint planning, being able to write user stories and being able to use task management. JIRA appears to be constantly evolving, developing, and adding new features throughout the process. 

I have had problems with performance and unresponsiveness. All of a sudden, the performance slowed down and I had a number of users that could not use the tool but, JIRA support responded immediately. Within a couple of hours, the problem was resolved.

I would give tech support a rating of eight out of ten.

I have prior experience with what was originally called HP Quality Center but is now called Micro Focus ALM. In comparing Micro Focus ALM vs Jira,I did not find it as intuitive or user-friendly as JIRA. I also have experience with and have compared CA Agile Central vs JIRA, but my preference is always JIRA because it is more established and very intuitive to work with.

The setup was on-premises and it was basically installing it on a server. I found the setup relatively easy and straightforward to install from scratch, in-house.

My advice to future users is to check out sources like YouTube and look at the main features you want. Potentially with JIRA, particularly with the cloud version, they have a seven day trial. I suggest that future users sign up for the free trial to make sure the features of JIRA meet their personal requirements. Also, the user should make sure that JIRA is a good fit for the user's organization.

It possesses excellent customization and serves the basic requirements: multi-project, products, customers and multi-level of users.

• We now have an excellent helpdesk ticketing system with follow-up and escalation.

• We used to have add-ons for remote support but it's not working, and it does not have powerful CMDB to help in building our KB and self-service for our clients.

Ticket management: We have our custom-defined ticketing number for each customer/product which helps in identifying the issue from the ticket number.

• It should be able to open a channel with a customer through chat or remote desktop.

• It should be able to define my KB articles and link it with a self-service ticket.

We use it mainly for Scrum management.

Most of the projects which we have taken in were using a waterfall model, which is very hard to convert into an agile or Scrum model. It helped our customers have visibility into requirements and reporting, since they were mostly using spreadsheets. We could help give them a clear cut view of what was happening on ground with development and the test database.

Reporting: It gives a nice report of my backlog and what my team has currently spent its efforts on.

JIRA still has their own backtracking tools. It should have a better visibility into HPE UFT. Most people use functional testing tools, like QTP. They need to improve their integration to make it seamless. 

You can do a lot with the tool but again, but it is not a 100 percent solution for everything. We have a lot of acceptance criteria coming through it, but JIRA doesn't support it. Therefore, we have go to different user stories and break them down. 

Using a cloud instance, it is always stable for us. It is not a problem at all.

We use a cloud instance for most engagement, so scalability has not been an issue.

My company has a 100,000 people, so we always can find someone within our organization who can help fix an issue.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I understand JIRA is quite expensive.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

1. Usability: It should be easy to use. People should not have to undergo a lot of training because it should be intuitive.
2. It should be scalable and a cloud solution. 
3. It should not be expensive. Cost is a major driver because I work in pre-sales.