Jira Reviews

I use Jira for the development of different versions of software, upgrading it from one version to another, and developing and collecting specs for the new versions.

I like that Jira keeps track of time and is good for how it organizes.

Jira has a lack of graphical interface that maps the different cases to the space or in the project. For example, if you have a project that has a big diagram of component systems, people, and use cases, each of those Jira cases usually can be mapped to a specific location. This can be enhanced by a curve set of Jira, or a curve set of screens, where you can map on which pieces of the project you were working on at that particular screen. When working on the left side of the diagram, or the right side of the diagram, you should be able to request all those Jira that are related to that part of the project.

If a system has ten different steps of data flow and the components are clear. You should be able to map those Jira cases to different steps in the process. This would show you how a field or component is related to a location in the diagram. The diagram then would show all the cases waiting to be done or already done.

Jira works too slow, especially when you are in a big organization with thousands of users. It is also too slow when integrating with other components like SVN or with a built system. I would like to see everything that Jira does is under have a second response time.

I have been using Jira for about one year.

Jira is a stable solution, other than planned downtime, it has no downtime.

Jira is integrated with other components in our system, like the build and release systems. 

We use internal technical support.

I would recommend that an organization implementing Jira ensure that someone gets training both at the developer level and the project manager level. The developer needs to know what needs to be done, what are the components and why are they there. The project manager should join the training and determine if there is a relation between multiple projects to see that they are really integrated well into other components of continuous integration and continuous delivery.

Because of the slowness, I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

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.

My organization primarily uses Jira for project execution like managing the sprints, sprint planning, task creation and execution of the project on a sprint basis.

They also use Jira for other insights into how our team is performing and the velocity of the team. They look at the dashboard and report to see how are we delivering minimum viable products (MVPs) on time.

Jira offers tools for managing projects using Agile methodology. I think it is good to encourage the development team to use Jira, so that the organization benefits from the proper execution of projects on time. It helps our organization to execute in a better way.

I like the comment section. When you create a Jira task and work on it, sometimes product owners need to know the most recent status. I can go to the comments and then provide my updates stating how far I am. They can also refer to it and they can comment on it. It's for collaborating with other team members.

I also like using the filters in Jira. I can label all of the Jira tasks based on different business areas or whatever category I want. I can filter something that is related to what I've been working on. For example, if I am interested in APIs, I can filter all the Jira tasks with the API label and get all the API-related tasks, check the progress and where they stand. 

I can also get access to documentation such as the tester data and the other things that other developers have provided.

Jira could provide more insight into sprints such as how did we perform in the last sprint compared to other sprints. It would be helpful to have metrics and a dashboard feature for others to see. 

I have used Jira for the past three to four years.

In all the time I have used Jira, I have not had any stability issues. 

Jira is used by many of our teams and I have no concerns around scalability. 

There are around 1,000 users in my company who use it.

Jira offers Agile project methodology management and can be used for defect tracking and bug tracking. I would strongly recommend any organization wanting to use Jira, to work with the Jira team to understand what each product offers and how suitable it is for their organization. 

The Jira team could be consulted to understand the project, your department's requirements, and provide a proper way of managing the tool and advising what are the kind of roles you'll need.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We are primarily a software development company. We work on some very specialized software for the government. So, we use Jira as our primary bug/issue tracker. We are also looking to put some add-ins in it to help with configuration management.

We also use it for configuration management and task assignment, but that's all within the bug tracker itself. What's good for us is that we are not doing all of that in three different applications. That's very useful. I'm sure larger businesses can find other uses and plugins for it, but right at the moment, Jira is fulfilling our needs.

We think Jira is great, it's been a real help as an issue tracker for us. We have had no problems with it. It just works; it's always worked. We never lose any data. So, we're happy to try to keep it going in the future.

We are a small business and we're up to our ankles in getting code out the door on a regular basis. We do not have a lot of time for investigating new things, but Jira has saved us a great deal of time. It has a nice user interface and we can do a lot of things with it.

They are not supporting in-house servers anymore and I think I've got until January to port this to something else. The issue is not that it is difficult to move Jira to another server, but we have a relatively large database on an SQL Server that Jira either uses or created and we do not want to lose that data. 

We are not a very large company so that is a problem. A lot of our business is on Azure and I would prefer to have an Azure solution for our software management. At the moment, I'm trying to figure out how to move Jira over to Azure on our servers. As a small company, we just don't have a lot of time to solve those kinds of problems. So we may end up moving to something else if it turns out to be more difficult than we can handle. 

Everybody has to make business decisions and obviously, right now, we're not in that sweet spot for them. But, moving onto the cloud has its advantages too. 

We are using Jira regularly now and have been for about a year. 

My impressions of Jira's stability are good. We are running the Jira application on a Windows Server 2019. We also have a large SQL database server running on Windows that Jira accesses. So, there's a Jira database running on the SQL Server and the Jira app and it's never gone down.

Jira is a scalable solution. We have not run into any issues with it. 

We have used a number of things from spreadsheets to in-house-built issue trackers. But Jira worked right out of the box.

For a small business, this quality of a product for the price is really nice. I think we're paying $78 a month or something like that right now.

I would definitely recommend it. Now I'm a 10-person development company with about 30 staff members. If you don't have a lot of IT support and you're doing everything yourself, Jira is a great product for you. It's not hard to install and it just works.

I use it to manage my scrum projects and some of the Kanban projects.

In terms of version, they have been updating it every three weeks. It is a kind of a sprint that they do, just like Google Chrome. So, there is no going back and forth. We use a cloud-based application. So, it is always the updated one.

The type of cloud depends on the client. I've been through all kinds of situations: completely public, semi-public, and private. If it is a public cloud, then it is directly from Atlassian. They are providing it. So, there is no middleware.

It definitely streamlined the process of managing the projects. Earlier, we had a system scattered all over the place. We had information in Excel, Microsoft Project, and some of the other applications that we have, but now, we have everything in Jira itself. So, we create user stories and groom the product backlog. We have kept everything in Jira. It is our single source for project information that anyone can go to. So, we could see a lot of transparency with Jira.

Overall, it is very intuitive. It is so lightweight and easy to use. It is easy to manage our product backlog and user stories, and it produces great reports.

It is good for single projects, but if you have to manage the portfolio level of the projects, they have a few add-ons that we need to buy and integrate. They can improve this part to manage it in a better way.

It is not capturing the number of hours for which each person has worked on certain things. We use many add-ons to let resources enter the time in the user story itself. We use an add-on called Tempo, but it is kind of a lousy add-on. It is not straightforward. Rather than helping us, it creates a lot of confusion. So, instead of looking out for the additional add-on, I would prefer to have the timesheet entered as a part of Jira itself. They are anyways capturing every information they could for each user story, and then we are able to break down all the task lists. For each task, we're also assigning a resource. So, while we're doing it, why can't they allow the users to enter the time that can be created as a report? Right now, we need to acquire the add-on, and the add-on is not great. It is not helping. The add-on is also not free.

There could also be some additional reports.

I have been using Jira for seven to eight years.

Stability-wise, it is very good. It is very lightweight. I have used other enterprise-level products to manage the same kind of scrum and Kanban projects and other projects. Other products have many enterprise-level features, but they're very slow and kind of hard to manage.

It is a cloud-based one, so I don't see much difficulty in scaling it. If you want to go from 100 users to 200 users, you will be able to do it without much hassle.

I've been doing a lot of consulting. So, I've seen from five users to the entire organization with more than 500 people using it.

I did contact them through email and discussion forums. I had a limited opportunity to work with them. So, I don't know much about their support.

Jira is a kind of the last one I settled on. Before that, I have used products such as Rally and VersionOne. These two are enterprise-level scrum and Kanban tools that are similar to Jira. 

I have also used Asana and Trello. Trello is lightweight, but I wouldn't call it equivalent to Jira. Jira has many features that not many solutions have. 

Most of the time, we are working with the cloud-based one. So, we don't have to set up everything. It is all there. You just buy a monthly subscription package. The workflow configuration, however, would be a bit difficult while you're trying to set it up. In addition, if you have to go down to the permission level, it is a bit different.

Workflow-wise, you need to plan well because once you configure it, you cannot often change a workflow. For each project, the workflow might be different. You might have a development team, a QA team, a configuration team, and a deployment team. When you start a task, you just need to make sure you are covering everyone. In terms of the workflow, you should know what would happen if someone is not there, and what are you going to do. So, you need to make sure that you are covering those things. Other than that, you need to know how much you are going to take care of the hierarchical level permissions. These are two primary things, and then, later on, you can relabel quite a lot of things in terms of how you're using the backlog product and user stories.

I would rate Jira an eight out of 10.

It's pretty much for engineering development, Scaled Agile purposes for engineering development, for managing basically the epics and the stories and the capabilities and everything that we have to deliver in sprints. We're not using it as a ticketing tool or anything like that, for operations. We're using it purely for managing the development stuff in a Scaled Agile manner.

The solution is easy to use. It's pretty dynamic. It allows us to basically handle everything that we need in terms of a backlog, and we're trying to do it in an organized manner, so we know who works on what and how to size the story points so we can ensure that our epics burn down from sprint to sprint.

In terms of the general way that the tool functions, it seems like it's a pretty good fit-for-purpose for what we're trying to do. We've never thought about replacing it with another technology. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The stability is pretty good.

There are a few things about it that I think need to be improved in terms of the ability to build reports. We would like to be able to use the data from Jira to help drive Gantt chart roadmap-type views of not only what we're building, but rather where we're going.

What we've elected to do in a couple of cases is just pull the data out of Jira and then pull it into Power BI so that we can try to get some of the more sophisticated information that we want out of it. We actually experimented with building portfolio views so we can see stuff in real-time. In some ways, it's okay. In some ways, it's just a little lethargic for our purposes.

We'd like to be able to manage things in real-time and by looking at stuff. We're doing PI planning, Program Increment planning, and that kind of stuff, and it's not always a good facilitator for that. We tend to pull it out and put it into other tools to manage that, and then we get it back into Jira as that's our system of record for where all the stories are kept. That's probably the biggest headache with it.

For some of the portfolio stuff that we did, the queries were so complicated that it was just taking forever. It was like watching paint dry for the results to come back. We would be in a meeting and then we'd hit a refresh and you're waiting for what seems like an eternity.

The solution could use API integration to take feeds from other tools so that we can read them better. We got one camp using an ITBM tool from ServiceNow. We have Jira running in this other area, and having an API between the two so we could actually collaborate between the two tools. However, API integrations with other tools would be helpful so we could either take data out of it or put data in it, thereby making it more of a data-driven platform that integrates nicer with other platforms. That, I think, would be something I would like to see.

I've been using the solution for four years or so. 

I haven't heard people really complain that it's unstable. We haven't had very many performance issues with it. I don't know if it was a network problem or what it might have been, however, I haven't really heard people talk about performance problems other than when we were trying to use it for portfolio views and that got kind of weird as queries were just complicated. Beyond that, the stability has been fine.

The issues that we have with scalability aren't necessarily with the tool as much as it's how we're using it. We're a big company so there are a lot of people using Jira, however, we don't really see how the projects correlate across different activities within the company. When we're trying to get two integrated roadmaps and trying to get to a point where we're collaborating, doing inter-sourcing of a solution, and we're all in Jira, there are times where we're in it and yet we can't collaborate and work together, and so we start replicating things across the two projects.

I don't know how much of that is the issue with using it how we are versus the product itself though. 

We have 8,000 to 10,000 people using the solution currently. That's across many departments. We are a company of around 150,000 people. There may be people using it that I am not even aware of. I only have visibility of what I'm doing and what I'm exposed to in terms of integration with offerings and that kind of stuff. I know when we were managing licenses, we used to have a DevCloud team. For their scope, it was in the 8,000 to 10,000 user range. 

The solution is being pretty extensively used. Likely usage will grow as the company grows and takes on new business. I don't know if it's going to organically grow exponentially as it's already being used where it needs to be used and currently we're only using it for development activities across the different offerings and platforms. It's not used as a day-to-day run-and-maintain ticketing system to manage customers or issues or anything like that. I'm sure there'll be some incremental growth as we take on new business and grow as an organization.

We use Jira. We use Confluence as an extension of that, and then we also use ServiceNow, the ITBM capabilities of ServiceNow as well.

We had a DevOps team that ran our cloud environment, and they basically spun up a project for us, and it was pretty straightforward. It's not like we were installing it in the cloud. People just said, "Here you go, and you can just start using it." After that, we just created a project for what we were doing, and then we were on our way. I wasn't really involved with any part that was problematic or anything.

In terms of maintenance, pretty much everybody is maintaining their own instance. We've got somebody that manages what's in the cloud for the company, however, it's pretty much hands-off in terms of day-to-day support issues. We had a few people that were supporting it when there were problems, however, it's just a handful from what I understand.

We're just customers and end-users.

We are likely using the latest version of the solution. I don't know what the latest version of Jira is, however, I'm pretty confident we are.

The advice I would give is it's not a solution for a novice person that doesn't know Scaled Agile. Users will get out of it what they put into it, and if you don't know what you're doing you could set yourself up for a nightmare when you're using the tool. My advice is that the better you structure yourself and understand Scaled Agile and how you want to set up the project the more successful you'll be at using it for your organization's purposes. If you're going in there as a novice that doesn't understand anything about Scaled Agile you could create a mess for yourself and then it won't give you the value you are seeking.

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

We had a regulatory requirement through our legislature to collect motor or voter information for residents of California. So, if you basically wanted to sign up to vote, you could do so at a department of motor vehicles. The Jira instance was used for what we call the new motor voter, which is the online premise to register to vote when you conducted a DMV transaction, such as vehicle registration, driver's license, renewal, etc.

We had its latest version. It is online. In the cloud, we set up an account for the department, and then add users as needed. It is a government cloud.

It documented our business requirements.

It was easy to use. The consultants that we had on board were familiar with it. So, obviously, having a community that had used it before or was familiar with it was a positive thing.

If I'm comparing it to ALM Octane, the documentation is not as robust as ALM Octane's documentation. So, they can improve on the documentation side.

Another enhancement could be in the area of interfacing with other products or connectivity. It could have better integration with other tools.

I have been using it since 2017. It has been about five years.

Its stability is good. There are no issues with the performance.

Its scalability is fine. At the peak, we had about 15 users, and towards the end, we had five users.

Our usage was not extensive. We used it only for one project, which was the motor voter project. We don't have any plans to increase the usage. We have stopped paying the subscription fee from the last month because we migrated everything over to ALM Octane for our business requirements.

We didn't need to call them at all.

We were using IBM DOORS Next Generation for business requirements. It was on-premises, and we weren't able to make it available through a URL to the external consultant or workforce. That's why we basically went with Jira. IBM DOORS Next Generation wasn't flexible enough to accommodate all of our remote workforce.

It was straightforward and easy. You basically create an account for your department, and then you onboard your users. There is a subscription fee per user for each month through Confluence. 

It took us a week to get it up and running. It involved reading, studying it, figuring it out, and then doing it. It was pretty simple to set up data and add users. So, we onboarded it within a week.

The challenge for us while setting it up was that we had to put it on a credit card, which is not a good thing for the government. Typically, the government likes to pay through a purchase order or procurement process, but because it was a monthly subscription fee, it had to be on a credit card. We had to use an executive card in order for us to pay the bill every month, which was really kind of a pain because our accounting office always had to make sure and check the number of users. They would ask if I had 15 users this month. I am the administrator of the application, so, of course, I know how many users are there. I can see how many users are there and how many are using it and remove them if they don't. I think the state just needs to modify its procurement process because I think ours is pretty old school. I don't think that Atlassian needs to adapt to ours, but that was the only challenge we had in setting it up and configuring.

We had an in-house as well as a procured consultant, but he was through the state, not directly with Jira or Confluence.

The ballpark figure is about $100 a month.

It is easy to use and easy to onboard. It has got a good foundation of offerings for the business requirements if you're working on an agile project or user stories.

I would rate Jira a seven out of 10.

I personally use Jira for project management and agile software development. I'm an information technology program manager and we are customers of Jira. 

We're a software development company and Jira is an essential element of our daily work. We wouldn't be able to function without it. 

Jira is a very comprehensive and flexible product. It's easy to set up, easy to learn, and is very user-friendly. If you're using the cloud version from Atlassian, there are no issues with maintenance or performance. I especially like the advanced planning features in the premium version and there are plenty of apps available if any functionality is missing.

The only complaint I have about Jira is that there is no field-level permission for the issues in the Jira cloud version. You can get an app for the server version, but the cloud version doesn't allow that type of functionality. For example, I write a user story that goes to the customer for approval. Once approved, I would want to be able to lock the description for that user story so it can't be changed, but I'm unable to do that. I can lock the whole story but not the description alone. It creates a problem because when I need to add the story to a sprint, I need to change the sprint number field. It can't be done because the whole issue is locked or lacks the properties to be edited.  

The other thing missing is a straight connection to the pipelines and the source control. I think it should be integrated with GitHub and other products that developers use. It's the lack of integration that's the main reason we are considering moving to Azure DevOps.

I've been using this solution for several years. 

I haven't had a single issue with Jira.

Jira is easily scalable to any level you want. Our company has 60 to 70 users working on multiple projects and we have a second installation specifically for one of our customers which has around 25 users. The users in our company have traditional roles; developers, business analysts, QA engineers, project managers and customers. We're using it constantly. 

Jira has a two-tier pricing system; a basic level and a premium level, which I think could be broken down a little more, but the pricing and billing are reasonable. You can add or remove users and they bill you dynamically month to month based on the number of users. It would be nice to have tiered pricing based on user numbers because, for large companies with hundreds of users, it's going to become expensive really quickly. It's acceptable for us and we have what we need.

We are considering switching to DevOps and are currently carrying out an evaluation. The main reason is that our offshore team uses DevOps for everything. We started with Jira so they had to use it for us, but we're hearing that DevOps is better integrated with source control and releases, so it's something we're considering now. 

I've had a look at the pricing of DevOps and it's really strange. Basic pricing is $6 per user per month or if you want to include test plans it jumps to $52 per user per month, which is an astronomical jump. I'm not sure whether it's $52 for every single user on the system. Jira charges $7 per user, per month for the basic version or $14 per user, per month for the premium one.

The product is very useful. As a program manager, I recommend it wholeheartedly. The cloud version is easy to set up, and there's no maintenance required. I haven't incurred any issues with performance or updates being applied incorrectly or any bugs. 

I rate the solution nine out of 10.