Jira Reviews

We use Jira for task tracking, sprint planning, and backlog.

The dashboards are useful. You have visibility across projects and various dashboards.

The status of the different activities is also helpful 

In general, it is not user-friendly. 

For a non-technical person to use, Jira is not intuitive. If you are a developer it's fine, but we are trying to get other technical people in to look at tasks or to update a task, move it from one sprint to another sprint and it takes more effort than I would like.

I would just like to see it easier to use, and I would like the workflows to be less complex to do what we need them to do.

My experience with Jira is limited, but the organization has been using Jira for three years.

We are using the latest version.

Jira is stable. to my knowledge, we have not had any issues with bugs or glitches.

The scalability can be complex if you are using workflows.

We have approximately 20 developers and some managers in our organization who use Jira. 

I have not yet used Jira technical support.

Previously, we did not use another solution. We started with Jira.

Along with Jira, we use Microsoft Azure DevOps.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward. 

It was fairly simple for us.

I would recommend getting sound knowledge first. It is difficult to go back later to fix things, so try to build it right the first time.

For the functionality that exists, I think that it's good.

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

We are using it for service management, change management, project management, and tracking the changes.

It is user-friendly, and you can manage your project according to the methodology you want. It is also easy to configure.

The dashboard reports can be improved. Its dashboard reports are good, but you cannot have complex reports. They are currently very basic. For instance, we can only choose two columns for a dashboard, so it is not friendly enough.

So far, I've only used the project management parts. We are examining resource planning and sample plugins for the product. From my point of view, resource planning is a little bit hard to link with project management. Sample plugins are another part of the system, and we need to link it with project management in the BigPicture screen, which is a little bit hard. It would be valuable for us if we can do resource planning in BigPicture as well. Currently, it is another plugin, and you can only plan based on the people and not projects, and you cannot link it, as far as I know.

My company has been using it since the beginning of this year. It has been around six months. I have been using it for three weeks.

It is stable, and everyone generally looks satisfied.

We are trying to settle the project management part and widen it to all countries in our company. There will be many users.

We are working with a consulting company. Technically, we are okay because all of us are using it now, and there is no problem. We just need to see more details of some of the modules of Jira.

For its implementation and deployment, they have been working for one year.

Jira is a big platform, and you can use staff management, project management, and other fields that all companies want to use. If you use Jira, you will see the whole IT governance in one system.

With this solution, we can see the full picture in detail, but it can be improved. Resource planning is not easy for our project base.

I would rate Jira a seven out of 10. It will be an eight in the future. I need more time to work on Jira.

We are basically using it to support the UAT tasks. We are also using it for IT support task handling and working together as a team in our company. 

At my workplace, we are using its most updated version.

I'm working in the IT department, and the ticketing system is the most important service for us. We are also using some automation add-ons. It a very good product for handling tickets and tasks and managing processes. It is also very useful and easy to use.

It would be very practical if you can more freely reach the information that is already inside the system. Currently, we have to buy add-ons for it. There is a lot of information in the Jira system that you can handle only through add-ons. You cannot reach such information on your own. If you want to use this information, which is already in the system, you have to buy some add-on to use. For example, information about how much time an assignee is spending on a ticket is there in the system, but you cannot access it without an add-on. JQL is a very good way to reach the data inside Jira. If we can reach more objects, even through JQL, it would be great.

There are a few small functions that we are missing in it. For example, you cannot rate a ticket. If you would like to use a rating for a ticket, you cannot give stars or something like that.

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

We rarely come across any issues. Sometimes, it slows down a little bit, and then usually, we just have to rebuild the index. That's all. It needs lots of resources and CPU memory. If the resources are okay, we don't feel any problem with it.

It is probably easier to scale on the cloud. The on-premise is not so scalable, but if you can define the resources, it works well.

In terms of the number of users, we have around 750 users.

We do not directly contact Atlassian. We have a support company that helps us with any situation.

It is simple to initiate or install the product. It is easy and simple, but if you make some designs inside and build some projects with some automatization, it can be more complex.

We first tried to build the system inside the Docker environment, but it was not a success. So, we switched to the normal installation mode. Installing the product and making it work took just a few days. It included building servers and a database.

We do it on our own, but we have some strong support. We have outside support in case of any problem with it.

In terms of maintenance, you have to do the updates. You have to upgrade the system and handle the add-ons versions. If you build the inside environment in the Jira, you always have to fast forward to the project.

We have two teams to handle the maintenance. For standard maintenance, where you are upgrading the versions, we have an IT professional team for it. For the inside environment of the Jira projects and automation functions, we have a service management team.

If you are using just Jira, it is cheap, but if you start to use it and you feel you need some more services or more functions, then you have to buy add-ons, which can make it expensive.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Jira an eight out of 10. It is definitely not perfect, but it is almost perfect.

We have been using Jira for schedule management as well as for making updates to our projects. I mention this in my capacity as a project manager. I most recently used the solution this year and did so for scheduled management of our varied tasks and projects. JIRA is actually used to put together an entire portfolio for each one of the teams, meaning for everybody. The solution listed each of our projects individually, with us needing to provide daily and regular updates. 

A most valuable feature involves the ability to customize the entries and to update them quickly. Unlike what was previously available, the solution allows us to create specific codes and symbols for the individual teams. The new version allows one to customize and to use demarcators. There is a code that can be entered in Align upon completion of a project or task and this apprises the project manager that it is time for its removal. 

Something I do not like about the new version is that there is a need to browse all the way back to the beginning, should a person click on a task that is specifically for his group and wish to go back and look at the other portfolios or people. However, I cannot state definitively if this situation owes itself to the way our team put the site together or to something administrative. When clicking the back button it would take the person to the wrong page, not to the one he desires. One would actually have no choice but to browse back to the portfolio and to find his group again and open it. Again, it is not clear to me if this problem lies with Jira or with the way our team laid out the site. 

I feel Jira is stable. The only hiccup which comes to mind is the one I mentioned, although it is not clear to me if this owed itself to the network we were using or to limitations of the application. Except for this, everything about the solution is stable. The only time a person can not look at the information is when the administrator announces his intention to remove it. 

The scalability is pretty good and we started on this process from the moment we started utilizing the solution. While we had only three teams and three sections, between December and January 15th the developers came together and expanded from three to 76 different tasks across the different teams. By February there were over 300 teams. Expansion is easy and did not just encompass our teams but also provided links to others that were outside of our main team set so that there were reference points available.

I would say the tech support is pretty good. I got back a couple of answers in response to an email I sent out. 

It was quite easy for me to set up my own pages. I had a field day with creating my own test pages and was able to play around with them and simply test out the different settings. Pulling in new documentation was very easy. The same holds true with pulling in attachments and it was, consequently, easy to set up. As well, I was able to set up certain sub-pages for our team for going in and checking JIRA.

There were initially eight people involved in the maintenance of the solution and deployment of updates. They had the people to whom they answered. We are talking about a large-scale effort. Without taking into account the Jira support line, I would say there were around 12 people managing and administering this version. For our specific team, there were around three. They were the actual decision makers. 

I am not in a position to comment on licensing costs. 

Our team does not use the solution exclusively. There are multiple ones which do, although I cannot state how many teams are doing so. I do know that the entire section of our agency is doing so and this accounts for a lot of people, well over a hundred. 

The solution is pretty good and is geared towards those with multiple teams who are using it for the same purposes as us. We use it for providing daily and scrub updates, for which it is really good, as it allows one to track every entry and see when it's entered, timestamp and all. So, if a person has a lot of mission-critical or time-sensitive activities, JIRA is pretty good for tracking and helping to keep everything organized.

While I am still biased towards services at the moment, I rate Jira as an eight out of ten, at it is really good and very functional. 

We use Jira to manage all our software development projects and our engineering projects. Our main use of the solution is for the workflows on our different types of projects. It's mainly used by our engineering groups, they have the proper workflows and all of the stats. As a director, I work more at the business level, tracking tasks similar to the new planner that's in Microsoft which some people are switching to. We also use it in the backend of the projects. For project managers and directors, it's more about a to-do list thing that's shared. I'm a company director and we are customers of Jira. 

The online collaborative nature of the solution has been helpful. Previously, coordination was done in Microsoft Project and Excel spreadsheets. The level of collaboration and the accessibility of the information which Jira offers has greatly improved things and we've also been able to build out and fine tune the workflows and the integration into the different tool sets. We're definitely going to keep using Jira.

I think the customization and tailoring of the workflows have proven to be very useful. And then there's the collaboration of the tool itself which has a lot of nice features. 

One of the issues is tracking the hours that people spend on each task. I know the solution has some built-in features but it doesn't quite meet our needs. We tried a couple of expansions unsuccessfully. Being able to track the effort on each of the tasks is important for us and we'd also like to be able to compare that with what's been budgeted. It would be useful. We've recently moved to Teams and some of the integration with Teams doesn't seem to work, whether it's not supported or not there, the ability to integrate that would be something we'd like to see. 

We've been using this solution for over five years. 

We haven't had any issues with stability. 

We're a fairly small organization. We've scaled up to around 500 users and we haven't had any issues with that. It's mainly used by our engineering group, and our active users use it all the time, on a daily basis. We'll increase as we organically grow. 

I can't recall the initial setup but it took us a while to figure out exactly how to use it. We deployed using our own staff. 

I don't know what the licensing costs are but we find them affordable. It's never been a major issue.

This is a powerful tool and allows a lot of collaboration, it's worth spending some time figuring out how your workflows will be, that's where the real value is.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I'm overseeing the developments done in Jira. 

The thing that I do like about Jira is that it is relatively easy to understand. In some respects, you don't have to read a lot of ticket information, and you can start pulling down. Everybody is using it, and it works for a lot of people who are just doing enterprise development, cloud-based development, and things like that. It is built for the general audience. 

It is a good defect tracking tool. It has a lot of capabilities and functionalities. There are a lot of graphs and a lot of tracking. It can be sprint-driven if you want. There is a lot of data that you can pull out for estimations. It has got a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities that are kind of like the Jazz platform for out-of-the-box scrum and other such things. 

It also works well with all the integrated tools that you buy.

One thing that I don't like about Jira is that when you do an export, it only allows a thousand issues. So the export feature needs to be better. 

Another thing that I don't like about it is related to epics. There are times when you simultaneously want to have a story tied to two epics, one driving the content change and one driving the format of that evolution. It is not truly a parent-child relationship. It is a single-parent relationship to the stories. It would be nice if you had the capability to tie in multiple epics to a particular story. It is a rare case, but we have that. 

Setting up and executing a triage board should be simpler in the sense of how you do the admin. I come from a regulated space, and there should be easier control of who approves and reviews a system board to oversee all the defects. It should have easier out-of-the-box solutions to allow us to set up a triage board at the system level, the software board level that reports to the system board, or the test level that reports to the software board at the system level. There should be out-of-the-box solutions to migrate that and say that who are the three people on the triage board and if they have these admin privileges. Software review board and test review board would be another thing.

We have also had a problem with the integration with Bitbucket Pull Request data. It is an add-on to the tool, but it is not fully integrated. It is not easy from my perspective. Jira, Bitbucket, and Xray should be smoothly integrated. Xray is pretty good, but Bitbucket is standalone. So, when you pull out the data from a comma-separated value and want to move it into a new database, you have to reenter the data. You somehow lose that Pull Request capability. Pull Request through Bitbucket and the review of the code should be easier to manage. You could use a software package called Crucible to go ahead and mark how you did the review, who reviewed it, and who is the independent reviewer or subject matter expert, but that also should be easier to set up. If they want Jira to be the one-stop shop of the view of all of your deliverables, not just from a defect tracking perspective, but also from a requirement perspective, a code perspective, and a testing perspective, it needs to pull out more data and work better as an integration tool. 

I'm using Jira for the requirement repository. When I do requirements, it would be nice if I had the capability to say that for your requirement, I'm going to give you traceability to support a traceability report from Xray. I'm also going to give a requirement ID number in the ticket. You could use Jama and things like that, but it would be nice if Jira supported that.

We had on-prem and cloud deployments. We had to go to on-prem because of the security measures that were deployed. On-cloud didn't have the same capability. If you have one database on the cloud and the other one is on-prem, they don't talk to each other. It would be nice if you pulled it in and you could switch and say that I want to go on-prem because I got greater security risk.

When we go into the regulated space, I require a lot more integration and capability for tools. It is very hard to get tools to perform at that level because they're built for the general audience. In the regulated space, whether you're in medical devices, avionics, or any other regulated environment, tools have to be validated. I've worked with some companies in the past that had the capability to facilitate that validation. With one of the solutions, you could go ahead and buy a validated suite or a requirement package that will validate the tool for your use, but it is such a small market for Jira around the world that nobody really cares about that.

On their website, they show a bunch of tools that work with Jira, but it would be nice if they gave you examples and said that if you're a regulated medical device or regulated, here's a solution that could work for you. Here is Jira. Here is Crucible, and here is Xray, and here is what it'll do for you. They could also ask how do you do the requirement management? Do you use Jama that ties to Jira? It would be awesome if they had some use cases that showed people how to use Jira as the building block and how to add something on the front end for requirement management, and something on the backend for testing, such as Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management. People would see it and say that I want to do that.

It would also be nice if it could provide some lock-out capabilities based on your development and environment preferences. For example, you can specify that no one can close a defect until it has been tested, or until a particular task is complete, you can't go to the next phase. It would be cool if you could have something like this set up versus someone configuring it in the background.

They have got 10,000 licenses of Jira, and they have teams around the world deploying it across multiple geographies. All of that works fine.

I haven't used them because this company has its own tech support. So, I've been reaching out to them.

Most people who turn to Jira say that the return on investment is much better. 

Jira and its solution off the shelf are cheap. It is cheap for startups.

It depends on what you want to use Jira for, and what's the problem you're trying to solve. If you're going to do defect tracking and management of an artifact and you have got requirements, code, and tests, and they all got to summarize, you have to then go ahead and take Jira. You can then buy Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management and get them to work seamlessly with each other. 

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten. It is fairly cheap. For a nine or ten, it would be like DOORS and Jazz platform, but the problem with that is that it would become really expensive.

We are using it for bug tracking and new feature development. We have its latest version.

Using Kanban boards has allowed us to become a flow-based organization versus a sprint-based organization.

Kanban boards are most valuable. 

The reporting capabilities, specifically customized reports, should be improved. The out-of-box reports don't meet our needs. We are big into customizing our reports, and being able to do ad hoc reporting would be good.

I have been using Jira for about three and a half years.

It has been very stable.

I believe it has been scaling. I don't really work with that group, and I am not sure. We've got at least a thousand people on it, and to my knowledge, it has been fine at least for our needs. It is being used extensively in our company. We don't have any plans to increase its usage. 

I have not had any interface with their technical support.

I have used Microsoft Team Foundation Server in the past. I switched to Jira because of the job change. Microsoft Team Foundation Server had a number of features that I don't see in Jira. It had good visual charting. 

I wasn't a part of that group.

There are some good and valuable tool plugins that make it a much better tool. I've got plugins that cover most of the features that were lacking. There are some specific plugins that are targeted for specific kinds of use cases.

I would rate Jira a seven out of ten. It all comes down to reporting. It should have better and more robust reporting.

We started using it in the eComm team for the website and all the digital projects. At the beginning was Jira for software development and the Confluence to move the communication away from our mailboxes. Now, we're also using it for marketing and campaign management. Confluence is now our single source of truth and, in general, we are using it in much more content-based projects.

In many ways: transparency, governance, new comers have a place where to find everything they need, email communications are kept to a miminum, project management is much easier. Also reporting to top management is improved, as there are a lot of nice features like roadmaps and dashboards that can be used for that.

The Kanban boards have been a very valuable feature because they can be either very simple for non-technical teams, but also highly detailed and data-driven for teams that are technical. We use them for both types of team.

Jira is also widely used, so whenever we start a collaboration with an agency/vendor we don't need to spend any time in deciding how are we going to communicate.

It is very flexible as well.

The next-generation software projects are very easy to use, but they lack a lot, and I found quite a few bugs. There are some really basic things that you still cannot do. For instance, setting a due date for a task that you create as mandatory is still not available. That's a bit of a blocker because people, especially those who are not technical, are not going to add anything if it's not mandatory. It's going to be difficult to teach them that they should do it anyway.

I'm trying to integrate these tools, and I'm trying to open them to different types of teams with different types of people. What I've found is that I read about a macro (App) or about a rule and think that it is what I need, but then find that things are not available for the cloud version. There are some features that are available only in the server version and not in the cloud version. I found a couple of add-ons that we were really interested in, and we couldn't use them because we're in the cloud version.

Sometimes when I tried to set up some macros/add-ons/apps, they didn't work well or were not flexible at all. For instance, you can add only one Excerpt macro to a specific page. And in the that area you cannot have a table, which means you cannot excerpt a table, only content. In general, if you follow the instructions they give you, it works, but when you try to adapt it to your actual needs, it often doesn't work anymore.

I've been using Jira for five years.

We started very small in just one team in the company, and then slowly we've started expanding it to other teams. Now, we are trying to roll it out to all the European digital teams.

We have had some big issues with customer support. Lately we have renewed our contract, and it has taken us two months to do so. There is no way to have a phone call with anybody. The chat is not there anymore. So, the only option is email, and these kinds of things are very difficult to communicate through email.

Two of us were contacting two or three different people from their costumer service till we found the one who was willing to go the extra mile and actually listen to what our issues were.

Try to be tidy from day one because it can get messy very easily. Jira is very flexible, and you can still move and migrate stuff around. However, the reality is that nobody is going to have the time later on to migrate and clean-up. I also recommend starting small because at the beginning it can be scary, especially for non-technical people. I'm thinking about the amount of notifications you'll get, for instance.

I would definitely start small and then slowly, while people are getting used to it, keep implementing it and adding features like roadmaps or dashboards. Try to have a plan or a scheme of how you want it to look before you actually start.

It's a great product and is widely used, so I would rate it at 8 on a scale from 1 to 10.