Jira Reviews

I am using Jira for some programming-driven planning and PI planning system, but I have just started using it for that. I am primarily using it for some projects.

I'm serving as an enterprise agile coach, so I work with a team to help them use Jira. I'm not really sure what the exact data subjects are, but I mostly look at what the team is doing and if they have updated, then they let me know. I'm not using Jira for my own instances, but for my team's. I'm helping the scrum masters and the product owners.

The solution is deployed on cloud.

In terms of scrum teams, I find that usually, the product backlog depends on charts and especially reports like Sprint Reports. I find the reports to be very useful. With regard to SAFe Agile, I was looking at having a proper program board. So far, I have tried using the portfolio feature. Something that I have been looking to understand or learn more about is how to integrate Scaled Agile and their work types into the Jira.

I'm still exploring the solution. I think the knowledge is a challenge because most people are used to Jira for teams, but not Scaled Agile. I think that is an issue with awareness. We are looking for some YouTube videos and help pages on finding that. Maybe there are features, but sometimes we aren't aware of them. We are still in the exploration stage.

I would love to see transparency in terms of how the program is displayed when you are working in multiple teams, especially how the dependencies could be tracked. The most important thing at the moment is that it is easy to do.

Something I would like to see improved is the traceability feature. When you have a user story, if you can see all the test cases, it would be an improvement if you could see any design documents or any change management. If you can see the traceability nicely, that is also something that we are looking for. Today we can link and do things like that, but sometimes the solution has a bit of a challenge with attaching test cases, so I think we have to use some plugin. Traceability with the test cases could be improved.

I have worked with this solution for five years.

The solution is stable.

I'm not able to comment on the scalability because I work with different types of teams. Some teams are really big, and they haven't said that they've faced any challenges. I haven't specifically asked, so I'm not very able to comment on that because I don't know for sure.

I'm working with a couple of teams made up of 20-30 users or 100-150 users, and maybe more for certain accounts.

I haven't had a lot of experience with technical support, but for the questions that I have raised, I received a pretty quick response, so I'm happy with that.

Setup wasn't that big of a challenge.

Implementation was done by Jira administrators, which was good.

The license is yearly. It is a large, long-running program.

Some of my teams have been using Version 1 and Rally. Because of that, I have been exposed to those tools for some extent.

My experience is much more with Jira. That's why I tend to go for Jira, but we haven't used many other solutions. Based on teams and what the people are saying, they find Jira to be more user-friendly. For Scaled Agile, I have also heard that they have found certain features in Rally more useful. But I don't know, I haven't used Rally to that extent.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

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 use it for client ticketing. We have managed services agreements with clients, and we use it when they have issues. It consolidates well with their IT ticket system. We are the first pass on the ticket issues. If it seems that a ticket belongs to them, we can easily pass it onto their system and their people. So, it is a ticket system for our clients.

We are using its cloud version, and it is hosted in Atlassian's cloud system.

It is not problem resolution by email. It consolidates everything in one place. We have unique cases that don't fit a particular engineer, and we're able to assign those on an ad hoc basis. It is a good process. For example, if it is a network issue, it goes to engineer A, and if it is an Azure issue, it goes to engineer B. So, we are able to quickly route it to whoever needs to resolve the situation without overview intervention. I like that feature.

I like seeing which tickets are open and what our response rate is. They have a lot of good metrics in their system to see what's going on.

I interface it with Slack, and that's a positive. We get our notifications in Slack, so everybody doesn't have to be an agent in their world for us to see everything, which is a positive.

I would like our clients' IT group to be able to have oversight without setting up agents. We're managing tickets, and I'd like their IT group to see everything we're doing without having to set them up as agents. There should be a better way of managing their users. I've got such requests, but Jira is expensive, and it is difficult to pay an agent fee for somebody else to view these tickets. Currently, the only way in which I can do that is by setting a user up as an agent, and it becomes cost-prohibitive. They need to do a better job on ticket viewers.

If they had a customizable dashboard, it would be great. There should be one with a public URL so that I could share it amongst other viewers. This is the beauty of Smartsheets. With Smartsheets, I'm able to have a customized dashboard. I can bring everything into Gantt charts for budgeting, performance, etc. There is one point of accessibility for our clients so that they can see the program in a snapshot and get whatever assets they need. I love that about Smartsheets, and I wish Confluence had something similar.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

Its reliability has never been a problem.

It works for us. We're probably managing about 25 to 30 tickets at a time. It is not like we're pushing the system.

Across the board, we might have about 100 users. Its usage is currently moderate. I would love to focus on one tool, but I use Smartsheets a lot for project planning. I know Confluence and Jira provide reasonable project management, but they're short in some features. So, unfortunately, I have to pretty much go with two tools. Confluence and Jira together make one tool, and Smartsheets is one tool.

I would rate them a five out of five. They are pretty good.

We did Freshservice for a bit. We got a client on Freshservice, and it was good for the time. We didn't really utilize Freshservice at the time. We had set it up for a client, and while setting it up, we customized it. We did a lot of front-end GUI tasks to make it work with their world.

A client pushed us toward Confluence and Jira, and that's how we started with them. I knew about Jira, but I never really used it internally. We had a client with whom we got a managed service agreement, and they said, "Hey, we're using Jira," and that's how we got in.

I did the setup, and it was easy. In terms of the setup, everything was intuitive with Jira. The setup is not intuitive with Confluence. It is not at all intuitive while setting up SSO.

It only took a few hours. It was really quick.

It was set up in-house. We didn't use a consultant.

I don't have the number, but I sure wish Jira was less expensive. Its price point should be a little lower, and it should be more flexible for users who are just ticket viewers.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

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.

We use it within our organization. 

It's to handle all the main technology projects. It's for managing mobile banking, internet banking, all the new products, and all technology-related projects.

We get the big picture of what is going on within a project.

The solution allows us to provide access also to the senior management, to see how things are progressing and to point out quickly what's going on, and help to focus energy on the things that are not going well.

The main benefit we got from the product is the consolidation. 

I like the roadmap or the new version with the roadmap that the solution offers. For us, the roadmap was a really great feature.

It's got very good portfolio management. 

The initial setup is easy.

The licensing is transparent. 

It's a stable solution.

Scaling the product wouldn't be difficult. 

Whether you are an expert in Agile or just it's the first time you are talking about it, it's a very user-friendly tool. It's a very simple tool. It's not complicated and even the integration and the usage is very simple. You don't need to be an expert. 

Whether you have small teams or big teams, it's the right tool.

We'd like to use it with non-Agile projects in the future, however, right now, it is a very Agile-focused product.

In general, however, as a solution, it's quite complete and I cannot speak to any missing features. 

I've been using the solution for one year now. 

At the moment, we have not had any issues with stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

At this time, we are not tackling scaling at the moment. The organization is not mature enough to scale up.

That said, based on the experience we have had now, if we want to scale up, it should not be that difficult.

We have approximately 200 people on the solution currently. Those users are mainly comprised of the software development teams plus some portfolio managers and program managers and the project managers as well.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have not had any interaction with them as we haven't had any major issues. We have a contract with the integrator, however. While everything is going well for the moment, we would have access to assistance if we needed it.

I've used Clarity, however, it was used in another organization.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was very straightforward, very simple.

The full deployment took about three months.

We have four people capable of handling any management tasks related to Jira. 

We had the setup services handled by a reseller of Jira.

It was a very good experience. It was very fast compared to what we expected from the contract. It was a nice surprise.

We have yet to see an ROI as it's been just one year, including the three months of implementation. Maybe in the next six months, we can have visibility on that. For the moment, it's still in progress. We cannot say anything about any ROI.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for an enterprise-level license. 

It's quite similar to the pricing that they have on their website. It's quite transparent from their site. They have a package that charges per user, however, they have some scalable packages, for zero to 10 users, from 10 to 20, from 20 to 50, and so on. You can choose, depending on the size of your company or the number of users. The costs are quite transparent.

While everything is included in that package, the integration or the customization is a different fee. There's a project apart from the integrator, which may vary in cost.

We are just customers and end-users.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement, however, it's a very good solution.

I would recommend the solution to others.

We're using JIRA in combination with Xray as a test management tool.

The Xray module gives us test management capabilities, right. Where we can store tests and test executions and so on. That's basically where we moved our test out and we left Quality Center behind. 

With Jira, basically, you have a story. You try to estimate the story and then you have to try to have coverage for each story with test cases. We sometimes use it for our automation perspective. We're using the JIRA Xray API to write bad test results into the tool, through an API call rather than going through the UI. Our continuous testing pipeline in GitLab will automatically update the test results through the Xray API. That's it.

The thing that was helpful, in my opinion, was the reporting. I was able to do real-time reports myself without having to wait for data import. 

The product has lots of dashboards that could be created also in Confluence using Jira features. I really like that. I am able to make it transparent to everyone where we're standing in regards to, for example, test automation or test coverage. We could easily integrate Confluence with Jira, produce some handmade dashboards, or use the dashboarding inside Jira itself with the various reporting options there. 

It's totally sufficient to cover our use cases right now. I have no gap at the moment.

There is always a bit of a performance problem. It's a bit slow to load the whole data. When I load those dashboards onto Confluence, it always takes quite a bit of time to get all the data in Confluence. It's a lot of queries.

The only thing that was bothering me was the performance issues where it was very slow. 

We started using the solution three years ago. I've used the solution since 2016 personally. 

Stability has improved over time. It was crashing quite a bit and the minute it crashes, the organization kind of stands still. It's a huge dependence we have on it. However, it was 99% available in the end. Only some kind of maintenance announcements might affect it. Other than that, it was quite stable.

Likely every single user has Jira as we are fully delivering software with that. It's between three and 5,000 users. It's company-wide and there could be thousands of users. All the development work is documented there. It's used for our agile teams. You have teams that are using agile scrum.

It's very flexible and it supports both ways of working. It's very helpful also with child transformation. The whole organization moves into agile and everybody is relying on those dashboards and daily standups and it has heavy adoption. Everybody's using it.

The solution is easy to scale and that's a bit of a problem. It's highly customizable and you can also destroy Jira by over-customizing things. If you, for example, want to raise a bug and you have 50 mandatory fields, you kind of lose patience with it.

That's not really a Jira problem. That's the customization from inside the bank where there are lots of different requirements being put into the tool and it can destroy the user experience in the end if they over-design it. If it takes you ten minutes to raise a bug due to the mandatory fields. That's really annoying and that's a big problem.

Internally, I've used technical support. I have not had contact with Jira externally.

We have a separate team in the company who is dealing with all the support tickets.

There are three levels of support tickets and they probably have connections directly to Jira people or Xray people.

We're looking into transitioning into possible options in GitLab only. GitLab test management would be a topic. However, there we are not clear about the features yet.

We came from Quality Center, the fat client version, and we moved to JIRA Xray three years ago. Now we're making a decision as to whether we want to move away from JIRA Xray to something else. That's the open question right now.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup of the whole thing. I was just a consumer. We were just migrating our data over from QC into Jira Xray and that migration process was okay. 

We lost some data, however, in general, the assets were transferred over and we could continue there and leave the whole old world behind and start working on the new world. 

From a migration perspective, it was almost seamless. Afterward, you just had to learn a little bit. That said, it's quite straightforward. The JQL query language was something new at the beginning yet easy to pick up without big pieces of training. You can train yourself pretty well with the documentation that's available on the internet. I was able to teach myself almost everything without having to go into any training. 

I can't speak to the maintenance requirements involved. That's handled by another team entirely.

I don't have any details in relation to costs or licensing arrangements. 

We have an on-prem installation of Jira. I cannot tell you the version of it. I don't actually care, as long as I can store my stories. They're moving into a soft solution, potentially next year, with it.

I am very happy with the tool. I would recommend others to use Jira anytime, as it's super flexible and there's a lot of things that are not being leveraged at all. There's so much power in the product - we don't even know half of it, I would say, in the organization. 

I'd advise new users to not over-customize it. If you just get it out of the box, you already have a really good evolution and you tend to break it by over-customizing it.

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

My primary use case for Jira is agile development as a systems integrator. The best use case is to pile up the backlog and then assign those backlogs stories to the user stories, which will be filtered into a sprint. Each story is then assigned to a cross-functional team member for tracking the dependencies and progress on the user story. You can also tag the user story to a particular team.

The most valuable feature for me has been tagging. Also, there's the option to add task lists to each user story. In addition, user stories can be grouped into one feature, which allows us to visualize our progress. The burndown chart is also helpful when it comes to reporting and allows us to know where we are going, especially during development.

I have used Jira for a total of seven months. 

Jira is a reliable solution. In fact, it is not only used for user stories. It is used as an issue tracker tool as well. So I think it supports multiple use cases, which is good.

Multiple users have logged into it at the same time without running into any issues. At my current organization, some 25 people use it. At my previous organization, about 40 people used it. We have plans to increase usage. 

I have not had to call up their tech support. They have plenty of troubleshooting documentation online. 

The initial setup was a bit problematic in terms of getting access to Jira. That goes for a few users, including me.

It is a good solution and a very popular one, as well. So I would recommend it if you are going for agile methodology. It works for both iterative and incremental development. You should use it. 

This is a solid solution for medium to large companies.

Similar to the whole solution stack, we use Jira for security and for operational data storage. We also use it for custom-made API structures, moving data from the cloud to legacy on-prem infrastructures so we can use it to develop failing interfaces. We're customers of Jira and we license the solution. Our company has a form of strategic alliance where we buy the product, pay the fees and use the solution. I'm a senior technical project manager.

The benefit of Jira to our company is that the product is extensible. We can integrate other tools and different interfaces into it. You can look at what's being done, how it's being done and know how to improve it. That includes things like optimizing performance or scanning the structures we build for security vulnerabilities. Extensibility is the most effective way we can create products and services for our clients.

The value of this product is that it offers a common language set so we can bring people into projects and get them up and running almost immediately. We know the language. It's the training and education content that's key and there's enough out there, whether it's paid training or free training, that gets people up to speed pretty quickly. Following on from that is optimizing the training for a given initiative or project. 

Although this is a somewhat old-school approach, we'd like to see some common building block approaches to certain things. We do a lot of coding and swapping things because there's a lot of common non-functional capabilities we have to share based on our own company policies. In that sense, it would be helpful to have some sort of modular building blocks that are in some of these up-and-coming extensible capabilities, like how you interface the next level of security scanning code or cloud to cloud capabilities, anything like that would be an improvement. These are expensive things to build and give out for free. At least knowing what's in the headlights for the products together with some good specific industry demos would help, whether related to the financial sector, healthcare sector, whatever. There isn't a lot of that; as things stand, they're generally offering demos with people talking about how you could have a secure way of developing a code for a HIPAA mixed standards or whatever. More documentation on how to precisely use the solution, particularly in a given industry sector, would be helpful.

We use a lot of third-party monitoring and although the extensibility is there, a monitoring tool suite as you get in production would be helpful. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

This is a good product, it's served us well. I don't really have a lot of issues with it so I rate the solution eight out of 10.