Jira Reviews

We use Jira for project management and tracking. 

I want the tool to integrate connectors. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

Jira is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has 300 users. 

Jira's deployment is easy. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten overall. 

I am an Agile coach and consultant, and my clients use Jira to manage Agile teams, including tracking and gathering reports on performance at the team level as well as the team-of-teams level.

Since I work with different companies in my consulting work, there are different versions and implementations of Jira that I deal with. Most of the time I work with Jira on-premises, although I have worked a few times on the cloud edition.

In the near future, I most likely be using Jira Portfolio instead of the regular Jira because that will be my new responsibility.

I enjoy working with (and can recommend) Jira for a number of reasons. The best features are that it is friendly and provides good visibility. It's to the point and very effective.

When I start work with a company, one of the promises I give them is that they will get visibility, and very quickly at that. We are able to easily create boards and have the teams start work with story points. Then, we will make use of the Structure feature, which is another good feature that we get benefit from. 

In terms of the general Jira software, one element that is missing is budget management. Perhaps such functionality exists in add-ons, however. Once, several years ago, I tried to use one such add-on (the name of which I can't recall) but I dropped it because it was not effective enough. If we had this feature, I think we could provide the whole picture to top management.

I have been using Jira for about five years. 

It is stable. 

It's not scalable enough, in my opinion. To explain, I have a specific level of understanding of Jira so I am able to make specific customization to support activities at scale, but I don't feel like Jira is easily scalable out of the box. It's not always natural to scale up Jira without customization.

The technical support that I receive is not necessarily talking with any Jira support team, but rather it involves using the community's help from the internet.

On one hand, this avenue of assistance is quite good because I can often find answers there, but sometimes it's not enough. In these cases, Jira will ask to open a ticket and to vote on it so it gets priority. But it's frustrating because we might still not get answers, or we don't find anyone able to handle our issue for months or for years.

Overall, and for most problems, I think I have enough documentation so I can figure out what to do and how to do it. When compared with other tools, I think that Jira's documentation is clear.

I don't deal with licensing in my current consultant position.

For application lifecycle management, I can definitely recommend Jira and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

What I like most about Jira is that it's flexible. It has the flexibility to be configured for any company.

An area for improvement in Jira is that it's not designed for test management. To use it for test management, you need an add-on or several add-ons, e.g. the most popular is Xray, or you can add Zephyr.

An additional feature I'd like to see included in the next release of the solution is the check in and check out feature for the test assets.

My team and I are currently dealing with Jira.

Jira is a stable solution.

I find Jira scalable.

The solution is very reliable, so support is not contacted often, but they are responsive.

Deployment of Jira can be completed within a few days. The number of people you use for its deployment still depends on the company size, but on average, you can use from one to two people for deployment, per week.

I was able to evaluate Micro Focus ALM.

I'm at a professional service company, and I'm the manager, so I don't work with any solution, e.g. my team works with the solutions. My team works with Jira plus Xray, then Azure DevOps, and Micro Focus ALM.

Micro Focus ALM is a very powerful solution, because you can link from the requirements to the test plan and the test lab. In the test lab, you can aggregate the test cases that you want to execute, including defect management. You can incorporate all these into a release, and inside this release, you can have several execution cycles. I'm referring to the functions of all the assets, e.g. functional testing. Jira doesn't have versioning, compared to Micro Focus ALM, so you can have different and fresh versions of the same asset. You can do that using different names, but Jira is not as well-designed as ALM.

I'm rating Jira an eight out of ten.

I use Jira for user stories, tasks, bugs, track releases, track backlogs issues, burndown, and test reports.

Jira has helped our company because it is easy to track releases and deployments. It is easy to track which tickets have been done or are still pending and left to be completed.

Jira's most valuable features are ease of use, simple to understand, and highly flexible. Additionally, you can use kanban or scrum which is a benefit.

The reports in Jira can be improved, especially for test reports. I find it difficult to customize and integrate for different testing purposes.

The out-of-the-box version of Jira has minimal to no testing functionality. I have to use Zephyr to be able to track testing. The time logging is also not easy to use, or user-friendly.

In the next release of Jira, there should be test cases in the test reports. Better burndown and burnup reports should be enhanced. Additionally, the usability of time logging could be better.

I have been using Jira for seven years.

Jira is stable and reliable, we have not had an issue.

I have found Jira scalable.

We have approximately 50 people using the solution in my organization.

I use the solution extensively in my organization, I use it daily.

I have not contacted support from Jira.

When I came to this company I had already used Jira. Previously, I was using quality control from Quality Center and Azure DevOps.

The initial setup was straightforward overall. The process takes only 10 to 15 minutes. However, the setup could improve.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

We have two administrators that do the patching and maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend Jira to others.

I would advise others to be sure to do the reports correctly because there can be some challenges in reporting and in the testing phase.

I rate Jira an eight out of ten.

For the past two years I have been administrating Jira for our enterprise organization, in which there are about 300 end users. Apart from an administrator, I'm also a hands-on Jira user now.

Our main uses for Jira include asset management, project management, Scrum project tracking, Kanban projects tracking, and cost tracking, as well as productivity measurement.

I feel the strongest feature of Jira is its workflow engine. It empowers us to automate our workflows within our organization. It's the one characteristic of Jira which I think can help any organization, be it in any domain. Also, its Scrum tracking capabilities are a great help, and these come out-of-the-box with Jira.

In the way it is deployed, I think Jira is too dependent on the third-party applications that are available in its marketplace. If we could get some of the basic functionalities which are offered by these third-party applications, that would be ideal because each time we need a new functionality, we have to purchase a new plugin as an add-on.

Then, on top of that, we have to keep paying the maintenance charge for those third-party applications along with Jira's maintenance cost. The functionalities of some of these plugins are pretty basic, which a user would expect out-of-the-box, instead of having to pay repeatedly for it.

Also, on the security front, if Jira could have a default, inbuilt encryption mechanism for all the data it stores, it would help organizations which handle sensitive data like healthcare or financial sectors.

I've been using Jira since 2020.

It's pretty stable and I haven't had major issues with it.

The current deployment is not that scalable. But when we go for an alternative deployment model such as the data center model, it's scalable.

We were on the server model for Jira, which is being discontinued in 2024. The data center model is pretty scalable. I think that shouldn't have any issues, but it is limited. I think the data center is limited to only two instances of Jira running in parallel. That should be sufficient, and I think with data center being the only on-premises deployment model, I think it's all right to have that.

Overall, I'd rate the support an eight out of ten. I don't see any glaring shortcomings but I do see certain things which could be addressed better in their support rather than just providing documentation and saying, "Please follow this documentation."

If they could provide on-call support for some of the issues and give us a path to follow, that would be sufficient. They don't need to sit down and resolve the issue for us. But if they could point us in the right direction, I would be satisfied with that.

That said, we do get that kind of support, sometimes. There is personalized support and we have a dedicated Jira expert who helps us with our tickets. But if we are stuck, and we are not able to find a solution for our problem, then we should have a second level of support, which could be an on-call support. That would help us better.

Positive

It was straightforward to set up Jira, even though it was on-prem. But to set up the supporting modules for Jira, like the web component (e.g. Apache) or the database component, requires a little bit more effort. The Jira application does provide support on that front, but the support is pretty limited, because they do not vouch for the other modules that aren't built in to Jira.

Apache is a web server that interacts with Jira and I think they should better support the deployment of Jira with web servers at any enterprise or cloud-level. That should be provided as part of the deployment journey itself. As it is currently, their support that helps us integrate Jira with Apache comes off a little short.

We have our own compliance team who applies security patches and those patches are available from Jira directly. The maintenance is pretty easy and we pay a maintenance fee for Jira software. If there is any issue with downtime or service is completely stopped and we are not able to handle it, Atlassian provides us their support. Maintenance is not much of an issue with Jira.

The license model which we were on was a perpetual license model, which is the server edition of Jira, but that is being discontinued by Atlassian, which I can understand from their standpoint (in order to better compete). The server model means that we buy the license and we do not pay anything for the licensing part year-on-year. It means it's a lifetime license, but we do pay 50% of the license fee for the maintenance with the server. That is the recurring cost for us.

When we go into the data center model, which is the only on-premises model that we have, and the cloud offering from Jira, Jira Cloud, then you can see that both of them are subscription-based models. Data center is a yearly license, and as for the cloud, you can either pay monthly or yearly, depending on your requirements.

But this kind of licensing structure is actually a little heavy on the organization when it comes to the budget, I would say. The licensing which we had was a perpetual license with a year-on-year maintenance charge which we had to pay, which was half of the licensing fee.

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an ALM, an application lifecycle management tool. 

I like the entire workflow customization, which we could set up for our usage.

There are some really great in-built reports.

The solution is stable and reliable.

The scalability is great.

In terms of the initial setup, the solution is easy to implement. 

We've had zero issues with the product. It's been great.

Even though I like the reporting part, we have some issues. I don't know whether there is a Jira problem or a test risk problem, however, sometimes, we face issues on fetching the reports. This is when in-between integration comes into the picture. There could be easier integration. It used to be easier in 2016.

We've been using the solution for more than three years now. It's been a while. 

The product is reliable in terms of performance. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have 250 or more users using the solution. We might go up to 300. It's not likely we would pass 400 users. We might increase the usage a little bit.

We've never had issues with Jira and therefore have never reached out to technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

We used to use TFS.

The product is quite straightforward, especially since it is on the cloud. It makes it very easy to set everything up.

We have three people able to deploy and maintain the solution.

We did not use an integrator or consultant for the deployment of Jira. We handled the process ourselves. 

We pay for a yearly license. 

We primarily use the solution ourselves, as customers. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to others. It would be ideal if it offered better tool integration, however, other than that, we've never had issues. 

We use it for project and sprint planning and day-to-day bugs. We also use it for documentation, engineering, and enhancements tickets and for creating the feeds, which are like new features.

We are most probably using its most recent version.

It has been very helpful for feature enhancements, release planning, and sprint planning. We have been using it for creating bugs, enhancements, and all the tasks for a sprint. It helps us in looking at the quality aspects of the product along with the volume, burndown rate, and a lot of other things.

As an engineer, I like that it provides you blocks to put in comments, code, etc. It helps in giving better information. 

It is very configurable, and we can do whatever we want. Jira dashboards are also good, and we use them extensively. We also use the tracking mechanism extensively. 

Another thing that I like a lot about Jira is that in the dashboard, you can plug the modules that you want. You can enable certain sections. For example, you can show trend history, open Jira tickets, etc. Some of the managers have created a dashboard for each engineer. So, it allows you to do all sorts of things.

There should be a way to look for specific comments. When we have thousands of comments on a Jira ticket, there is no way to look at the comments of a specific type. In the comments, if there is a way to put a tag, it would be helpful. For example, when there are a lot of lengthy discussions happening on a particular ticket, there could be a conclusion tag or something like that to indicate a conclusion. It would help in sorting the comments based on a certain category, such as conclusion. I should be able to tag a comment with something like ##dev_conclusion##, and someone looking at the comments should be able to expand all the comments and search based on this tag. Some of our tickets can go up to 100 or 200 comments, and it currently takes a lot of effort for someone to go through them. It would be good if there was a way to preview the comments.

We want Jira to be the single tool that people use. We lose a lot of information when working at the ticket level in Jira. We don't want to have discussions in Confluence and design docs somewhere else. Currently, we make some decisions outside, and we make some decisions in Jira, and there is no combined way. There should be a way to integrate documentation into this, and I should be able to directly update the documents. They can also incorporate a review mechanism for documentation. I should be able to assign a sub-comment to someone to say, "I'll respond to it," or I should be able to tag someone to say, "Can you please look at it?" We should be able to use a workflow. There should be some built-in intelligence where when there is a design document in a Jira ticket, the signoff should be done by certain people. Currently, the documentation is completely separate. If there is a way to get the documentation into this whole workflow, it would be useful.

I have been using this solution for seven or eight years.

Its stability is really good. There is no doubt about it. Sometimes, we have performance issues. That's mainly because a lot of people have standup meetings between 8 am to 9 am, and everybody is using Jira at that time. The number of connections is at a peak in the morning hours. If I was a Jira development engineer, I would be thinking about a mechanism to ease that. Other than that, it is pretty stable and reliable.

We didn't have any issues with scalability. We create hundreds of tickets every day. We have between 1,000 to 2,000 users across all departments. It is being used extensively, and its usage might increase.

I didn't have any contact with their technical support. We have a Jira maintenance team. We have a Slack channel, and if there is an issue, we send it there, and the team looks at it.

I'm not a part of the team that takes care of its deployment. We are a big organization, and I am an end-user of it.

I would advise having proper planning because you don't want to clutter your Jira. Without proper planning, you would go on creating a lot of labels and other things, which would be of no use. You need to do release planning and then accommodate things into Jira. 

A lot of companies have a separate release planning team, and then there is a separate Jira infrastructure team. All these teams should think and work together. Otherwise, everybody would be creating their own tags, which won't make sense. I might create a tag for daily bugs, and someone might create another tag for the same thing, which would result in cluttering.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. Jira is an amazing tool. There is no doubt about it. We have no thoughts of using any other tool.

We basically use the solution for trying to develop a product end-to-end. It's assisting us in having hardware and software come together.

The solution provides users with clarity in terms of the scope of work in a given timeframe.

Managing the backlog and being able to move work around and drag it around in order to replan it to certain sprints is the solution's most valuable aspect.

There are many areas where improvements can be focused.

There's a really steep learning curve for configuration. I'd like them to simplify all of their configurability yet not remove the configuration options.

I've been using the solution for two years.

We haven't had any noticeable stability issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable. 

There are some issues with scaling. It's difficult to consistently configure multiple teams within a single product.

We have about 150 and they're robotics engineers, software engineers, firmware engineers, PMs, and product people. Anyone that would be on a product development team uses it.

We will maintain usage and intend to continue using it for this deployment. I cannot speak to if there are plans for expansion.

We've never reached out to technical support. I can't speak to how helpful they are. 

I'm also familiar with Azure DevOps, which is easier to set up. However, this company has always used Jira.

The initial setup has a moderate amount of difficulty. It's more complex than, for example, Azure DevOps. I'd rate the process at a three out of five.

The deployment took about three months. 

I'm not sure how many staff are needed for deployment or maintenance tasks. 

We handled the implementation process in-house with our own team. We didn't have any consultants or integrators to assist us in the process. 

It's hard to put a number to the ROI we're seeing. It's more qualitative around the structure it provides than any kind of cost savings. 

The cost is about $10 per user, per month. 

There is a perception with Jira that they try to nickel and dime you quite a bit.

For example, they'll often say "Oh, you want this little feature? We'll charge you $3 per month per user." Whoever's signed up to your account they will charge you, even though you might only need five people to sue it from a 150 person team. That's excessive.

Compare that to Azure DevOps where withAzure DevOps, you just pay $20, and then you deploy that extension to your instance or tenant. With Jira, they charge you a dollar or $2 per active account in your tendency even if not everyone in my tenancy needs to have that extra feature set.

Since we use the cloud, we are using whichever version is currently deployed there. It's updated automatically.

I would recommend Azure DevOps over Jira.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.