Jira Reviews

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.
   

We are working in the safe channel process in the IT part of the bank. It is a good experience overall, but the look and feel for the user is not good.

It benefits us because we have globally located teams. Our team members work in different geographies, so the product is a better way to manage progress and see the status of different tasks. Otherwise, it is not possible to work in different geographies.

I can drag and drop to the different statuses. I can go into the task and change it, then I can directly drag and drop it from one status to another.

There is a difficulty viewing all the attachments because they are shown in one place. I would like attachments to be shown at the comment level. Right now, if I attach something, it will go into a single attachment pool for the task, not at the comment level. I.e., If I want to attach the new version of a document, it creates confusion because I have to remove the existing attachment.

When writing comments, there are not many options for formatting. We were expecting formatting something at the level of Microsoft Outlook or Microsoft Document.

When creating a task, there is no place to add our estimation.

Sometimes, it is slow and hangs. We faced some stability issues where JIRA was down for a day. Also, we have lost some of our comments made in the JIRA because of downtime.

I don't have any issues with scalability.

We haven't used it.

We did not have a previous solution.

I would tell a colleague looking for this type of solution to look at Microsoft TFS and VSTS. 

Most important criteria when selecting vendor:

• A well-known vendor for the software.
• A good reputation.
• Compare what other companies are using.
• The look and feel of the user interface.

The primary use is task management. It has performed okay. It is easy to configure and maintain. It's quite simple to track tasks, then link with other applications/solutions from Atlassian, like source codes.

• Visibility
• Avoids emails and exchanging information in an informal way. 

I would rather have a tool that we do everything on. Also, we have access to end user policies where we can configure them and give access to the correct person. We have tracking of who works on what and why over the history of a project.

Workflows, because we cannot employ a different approach depending on the speed of the project or customer. Whether it's research, engineering, or maintaining the process, we can cope with processes easily without adapting the tool, but adapting the tool to processes.

There are no fields to search or to filter by, mainly the ones which use a data around a date and time when something changes. So, you have to use some add-ons and create a lot effort to obtain information from the tool. Thus, you have to adapt to the lack of search that the tool does not offer.

So far, so good.

I don't see any problem with it.

In the past, I had training from the distributors and it was okay. 

The tool is very easy to use. What is important is that we don't have to wait so much for contracts or more hours to have support. This is something that we have, and it is good for this solution.

Everywhere that I worked, we started by using spreadsheets, then we moved to some free tool, and finally to JIRA.

As far as I know, the initial setup was very simple and straightforward.

Understand your own process: What you are looking for, the size of your company, what your budget is, and the larger plans for the future. There are tools that scale better than others and there are solutions that fit to both small and big teams. There are tools which scale better for larger companies. 

Most important criteria when evaluating a vendor: 

• We evaluate the company's strategy.
• If they bought an legacy solution to add to the portfolio or if they are developing from scratch.
• What are their plans for the future?
• What type of support do they have?
• What is their business model? 
• Do they have domestic experience or not?
• Are they focusing only on a few customers, and the size of those customers?