Jira Reviews

We use Jira for project management.

Our team really needed something to help us track the progress that is made against our system-level requirements, and this solution helps us in that regard.

The most valuable feature is Jira Align, which is a plugin that helps you to understand the progress that is made against each epic. I have had limited exposure to it but by using Align, we can also see the progress concerning Initiatives, including progress made against the requirements.

In general, Jira Align is very useful for management. It allows them to see the big picture and what is really happening from a team-execution point of view. Being able to see progress against their Initiatives is a nice feature.

The UI is good, and it helps us to see what needs to be done to complete our sprints.

Nowadays, many organizations are moving toward the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) framework, and this is something that Jira should be able to accommodate. Jira should understand that at the leadership level in an organization, such as the C-level or even below that, they don't like to have an epic creator. Rather, they are interested in observing all of the corporate objectives that are being turned out by the team.

OKR is a very important feature for them to add, and it's a big investment. There are separate tools that are trying to support and enable people to use this framework. If Jira could do that, it would be great because we don't want to integrate multiple tools. For example, we don't want to use one for OKR and another one for Agile backlog items. If we can have support for everything using one tool, it would be helpful. That said, it would require a big investment to implement.

The biggest drawback that Jira has is that they don't have a separate chart to show metrics for lead time, cycle time, and throughput. We use the control chart as a workaround but it's not giving us the correct metrics. The metrics are skewed because the chart shows us some items that are still in an open state. This is something that needs to be fixed. By comparison, Rally Software has a feature that enables people to understand the lead time, cycle time, and throughput as separate metrics in different charts. Having Jira implement that capability would be helpful.

We are unable to enter an explicit agreement below the kanban board, which is something that we would like to be able to do.

I have more than five years of experience with Jira.

Stability-wise, Jira is good.

Jira has no problem with scalability. It's far better if you compare it to Rally.

I also use Rally Software. Some times are more on Rally, whereas other things are more on Jira.

Rally software has some better charting features, whereas Jira is more scalable.

Between these two products, it's very difficult to say which I would recommend. Rally has some good features that are not available in Jira. For example, in Jira, we can't put an explicit agreement below the kanban board. This is something that we can do in Rally. Rally Software, on the other hand, does not have the feature that allows us to understand the progress made at the feature level or the initiative level. This is something that Jira gives us with the Align plugin.

I would lean toward Jira as the market leader. If they improved some features, such as the metrics available on the charts and support for OKR, I would prefer and recommend it over Rally and other products.

The pricing for Jira is reasonable, although I think they can bring it down because the plugins cost extra. Jira Align, for example, is available at an additional charge.

Jira should understand that there are now competitors in the market, and they should lower their prices to expand the user base. As sales volumes increase, the price should naturally be brought down. In this case, people are more likely to retain their licenses instead of switching to a more cost-effective solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

Its use case just depends on the company I've been with at the time. I have used it for defect management, development processes, and status. At one point, we ran our entire risk platform out of it as well.

The dynamic communication and the ability to customize it the way we want are the most valuable features.

Its ability to perform true executive-level status reporting could be improved. There are a lot of benefits there, but there are also a lot of things they can and should expand upon.

I have been using this solution for about eight years.

I have not interacted with them. I've struggled with getting Atlassian resources, but that could partially be my fault.

It depends on the type of license. In terms of subscription, it is cheap, and it works pretty well.

You need to investigate and understand dynamically what it is that you're looking to do. Don't just dive in and start creating. Before going into it, you should really organize your formatting or direction of the cause. There are other tools that are like cookie-cutters. Jira is so customizable that you really need to define what you're going to do with it.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We are using Jira for our test management. We're using it to record our inspecting results and to regulate the evidence in the report. 

The integration could be better in Jira.

I have been using Jira for approximately 15 years.

I have found Jira to be stable.

Jira has been scalable.

There is an annual subscription to use Jira.

I would recommend the solution to others. I have been happy with Jira.

I rate Jira a seven out of ten.

We use Jira mostly for task coordination and assignment. Additionally, scrum methodologies defined work items and bug issues. If we create any bugs all of them are fixed.

Jira can improve by making methodologies better, such as scrum and agile. Additionally, improvements in Kanban boards are needed.

I have been using Jira for approximately five years.

The stability of Jira is good.

Jira is scalable, this is in part because in our company we use it on the cloud.

We have not needed to use the support from Jira. It is easy to find information on Google or any other search platform. If we encounter an issue we can find the solution online.

The initial setup of Jira was simple.

The standard package of Jira is for 100 users. They should offer more packages for other increments, such as 500 or 2,000. In my previous company, there was a free package that provided a minimal number of users.

I rate Jira 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.

It's scalable.

It's easy to deploy.

The cost of the solution seems to be reasonable. 

Once the solution is deployed, it's not easy to configure. If you have a lot of capability, it's very dynamic from the back end. Therefore, when setting up the workflows, it can be a little bit complex. We did a lot of functions on managing the development and that's why maybe it's a little bit complex. Basically, in order to design a workflow in Jira, it's not a straightforward task.

From a feature perspective, not much is missing. However, they need to put some investment into the user experience. It needs to be easier to use, more friendly, especially on the configuration part. It's a hassle. You need to deal with a high learning curve in order to understand how it's configured and how it can work.

We've used the solution for more than eight years now.

The solution is scalable. 

We have more than 50 people using Jira at this time. 

We do plan to increase usage. We are growing. Since we are growing, we are increasing Jira as each member on the technology team needs an account for development, business analysis, or testing.

While the initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward, handling the configurations and the workflows can be complex. 

I didn't attend this in the development phase. In testing, I did the same effort and it took me a month to set up while I was deploying a test stream. I worked on the testing workflow as well, the defect workflow. That said, I don't know how long it takes for them to configure Jira.

We handled the setup in-house.

The licensing is per unit. My understanding is that it is pretty affordable. However, I don't directly deal with licensing.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

From a testing point of view, I would rate it at a six out of ten. I use it as a defect management tool, and it, for me, it's not easy to use.

Jira is used for issue tracking and defining the development pipeline. It's helpful to define when a project is done and track a task as it moves through different stages. The deployment type varies based on the customer's environment. We sometimes connect to the client's setup, which can be in the cloud or on-premise. 

I like that Jira allows you to customize the flow for an agile process and adapt it to your own flow.

We've used Jira for around 10 years.

We evaluated Jira for security and stability, and everything went well. 

Jira performs well and scales up enough to meet our needs. We probably have about 200 users, so we don't need more than what it offers. 

We used a solution called Mantis a long time ago. We're a software outsourcing company, so we adapt to our clients' setup. Plus, Jira serves our needs well, so it made sense for us to work with that. We don't recommend anything else. We use Azure DevOps, Jira, and Confluence on our projects. If it's not in Microsoft, then it's Jira and Confluence.

Deployment isn't something I handle personally. Our DevOps department does that, or it's installed by the client, so I'm not dealing with it either way. One engineer is enough to deploy.

I don't know the price of all the setups. Our clients pay for the setup, so our Jira users are covered by them. Of course, the price could always be cheaper.

I rate Jira nine out of 10.