We performed a comparison between Jira and PractiTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is stable and reliable."
"The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira."
"The most valuable features of Jira are the dashboards and user interface. The processes within Jira to monitor, maintain and release are beneficial. It is a continuous development solution."
"Issue linking has enabled teams to trace issues."
"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. Basically, it helps our organization to execute in a better way."
"Jira can track projects, time management of assignments, and keep everything on schedule. The performance of the solution is good."
"This tool can be used anywhere and on any device."
"Jira is flexible and accessible for the end-user. It lets users track their requests. The look and feel are good for our purposes."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"I would like integrated requirements management, so we do not have to buy plug-ins for JIRA, since it was hard to get requirements management for it."
"There is a difference between their cloud and their server versions. The next-gen project, which is an advanced feature that allows you to visualize the road map of your delivery over multiple products and over time, is not available yet for the sever version. It appears there in the list, but it's still not right. I've tried to use it many times and I am watching the device show their tracker, but it seems they intentionally want this to increase the utilization of the cloud instead of the server. It is really a nice feature and it's a shame that we don't have it."
"The tool should improve its pricing."
"The automation feature needs to be more user-friendly."
"In Jira Cloud, integration with Excel is missing. Previously, I could import our Excel files into Jira, and I could also download a big Jira report in the Excel format, but now, it needs to be manipulated after that, which is not good. It looks like they've done that on purpose, but I don't understand the reason for it."
"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."
"JIRA still has their own backtracking tools. It should have a better visibility into HPE UFT. Most people use functional testing tools, like QTP. They need to improve their integration to make it seamless."
"Ease of administration and customization. It is really clunky in this area."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
Earn 20 points
Jira is ranked 1st in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 266 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 20th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Jira is rated 8.2, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Polarion ALM, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Microsoft Azure DevOps. See our Jira vs. PractiTest report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.