Jira Reviews

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. 

It is used by the agile teams for product development and feature management.

It provides very good visibility and traceability. You can clearly see each and every part of a process. It is also user-friendly and robust.

It is working well, and there are a lot of add-ons or plug-ins out there that you can use. 

It would be good if we can grant access based on the roles. This is something that Jira can look into. Currently, anyone with Jira access can access everything. Being able to define access based on the roles will give us more flexibility in managing Jira.

I would like to have more reports in Jira. Currently,  eight or nine reports are there. You can use Screen Test to get more reports or data from Jira, but you will have to get more add-ons, plug-ins, and stuff like that. It would be good if they can increase the number of reports.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is stable. I don't see any instability in Jira.

It is easily scalable. We have around 1,500 users.

I have not directly interacted with Jira's technical support. We have an internal Jira service desk for any issues.

I have used HP ALM, version 11, and it was not so robust. I found Jira to be more robust. In HP ALM, you can define the requirements and test cases and map them, but you cannot see the in-depth requirements, whereas Jira provides more visibility, and you can see each and every part of a process very clearly. It is more open and user-friendly. 

Traceability is very important for the SDLC process, testing lifecycle, and audits, which is one of the key features that Jira provides. It provides detailed traceability so that you can easily know about the sprints and change requests. With HP ALM, you can define requirements only in one or two lines. It is more of a testing tool. It is not a development lifecycle tool.

The initial setup for Jira was done by a third-party vendor, so we did not face any issues. The migration from an older application to Jira was not so easy, and it required a lot of effort.

It was implemented by a third-party vendor. It requires maintenance, but it is not so difficult to maintain. For maintenance and administration, we have an internal Jira service desk.

You need to do upgrades because you tend to have requirements from different stakeholders. You also have different add-ons and plugins, and Jira also keeps on releasing new versions that might be useful.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Jira a seven out of ten because there are some areas to be improved in Jira.

I use the Jira app, not the desktop version. 

I work at a university and we use Jira to create tickets, epics, and stories. We link Jira to spec documentation with Confluence. We can also link it to TestRail.

Within the university that I work for, there are roughly 4,000 people using this solution — all staff members use it. 

I like that it's integrated with the specs. You don't have to put the specs in a shared folder or a shared server. It's all linked together with Confluence. We just put the specs into Confluence and then link it to the ticket in Jira. Once our developer has finished his development, we can link it to TestRail to create test scenarios, test them, and analyze the results of the test.

It should be connected to ServiceNow. We use ServiceNow for deployments from our test environment to QA, then to production. If it was linked to ServiceNow, it would be perfect — it would be more integrated. Still, at least we can link our test scenarios, specs, and the tickets themselves so we can track the requirements — that's good. We have to use ServiceNow separately to deploy and move corrections from one environment to another.

There are a lot of features that need to be added on top of Jira for management, sprint planning, and agile topology for project management. My project manager says that there are not a lot of features for project management in the agile mode. They have to buy other products to put on top of Jira to be able to properly manage and to track what people are doing.

I have been using Jira for two years. 

I was always able to connect. Once you're inside, it's good. We have never experienced any bugs, glitches, or crashes. 

I think it's scalable. It can be integrated with other products easily. It's not a standalone product. Integration is the most important thing when it comes to scalability. I believe it uses a certain technology to make it even more scalable. 

I've never had to contact support. I've never had a bug or a bug message that I needed to open a ticket for. 

We used to use Remedy, but it didn't have everything that Jira has. Jira supports agile methodology. I used Remedy with waterfall projects, but for agile, Jira is the way to go. I've heard people say that Jira is better than DevOps tools.

I don't think it's complex to set up. The features are standard and come included with the product. You only need to know how to use it, create new Jiras, and how to link them. I don't think the setup is complicated. I've installed Oracle E-Business Suite a lot — that's complicated. Jira is much more direct. 

If you're interested in using Jira, you have to just go ahead and buy it and use it. Try to use all the functions that are available. There's a lot of things to do in Jira. I recommend it. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Jira a rating of seven.

We use it mainly for Scrum management.

Most of the projects which we have taken in were using a waterfall model, which is very hard to convert into an agile or Scrum model. It helped our customers have visibility into requirements and reporting, since they were mostly using spreadsheets. We could help give them a clear cut view of what was happening on ground with development and the test database.

Reporting: It gives a nice report of my backlog and what my team has currently spent its efforts on.

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. 

You can do a lot with the tool but again, but it is not a 100 percent solution for everything. We have a lot of acceptance criteria coming through it, but JIRA doesn't support it. Therefore, we have go to different user stories and break them down. 

Using a cloud instance, it is always stable for us. It is not a problem at all.

We use a cloud instance for most engagement, so scalability has not been an issue.

My company has a 100,000 people, so we always can find someone within our organization who can help fix an issue.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I understand JIRA is quite expensive.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

1. Usability: It should be easy to use. People should not have to undergo a lot of training because it should be intuitive.
2. It should be scalable and a cloud solution. 
3. It should not be expensive. Cost is a major driver because I work in pre-sales.
   

I have worked with Jira for agile scrum projects. Jira is a good tool that helps you track and monitor all your stories, scrum updates, and Definition of Doneness (DoD). We can track everything we need to track and pull the reports from the Jira tool. Based on the team's activity, we can monitor, track, and update the tasks we have assigned through Jira. We also use Jira for sprint planning.

The most valuable feature of Jira is the reporting feature, which allows us to track our team's tasks. You can export and play around with the reports. In the defect tracking tool, you can pull the data and generate reports with a nice graph. It's very user-friendly. The solution's user interface is intuitive and easy to use.

Sometimes, Jira becomes slow when more people use it. Then, we have to close it and log in again. The solution's stability could be improved, and it could be made more robust.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

Around 2,000 users use Jira in our organization.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

The initial setup of the solution is very simple. You can install Jira as a standalone solution. Deploying the solution on the cloud is very, very easy, and then you can access it from anywhere on the cloud.

I have used Micro Focus Quality Center, which is purely a defect management tool. We can also use Jira as a defect management tool. When you compare both tools, Jira is now the best tool for defect management and running scrum projects. You can even expose the Jira APIs to do automation.

If you find a defect, you can automate the process of logging in to Jira and erasing the incident. When you find a defect while running JMeter scripts, you can take the APIs and automate it to save time. The automation process can be done through Jira because it exposes its APIs to third parties to integrate with other tools.

You can expose Jira APIs and integrate the solution with other tools. You can have your own dashboard using the APIs. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an ALM, an application lifecycle management tool. 

I like the entire workflow customization, which we could set up for our usage.

There are some really great in-built reports.

The solution is stable and reliable.

The scalability is great.

In terms of the initial setup, the solution is easy to implement. 

We've had zero issues with the product. It's been great.

Even though I like the reporting part, we have some issues. I don't know whether there is a Jira problem or a test risk problem, however, sometimes, we face issues on fetching the reports. This is when in-between integration comes into the picture. There could be easier integration. It used to be easier in 2016.

We've been using the solution for more than three years now. It's been a while. 

The product is reliable in terms of performance. It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have 250 or more users using the solution. We might go up to 300. It's not likely we would pass 400 users. We might increase the usage a little bit.

We've never had issues with Jira and therefore have never reached out to technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

We used to use TFS.

The product is quite straightforward, especially since it is on the cloud. It makes it very easy to set everything up.

We have three people able to deploy and maintain the solution.

We did not use an integrator or consultant for the deployment of Jira. We handled the process ourselves. 

We pay for a yearly license. 

We primarily use the solution ourselves, as customers. 

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

I would recommend the solution to others. It would be ideal if it offered better tool integration, however, other than that, we've never had issues. 

Our primary use case of Jira is for tracking corporates and for new test cases where we need to execute monthly releases. We use it for test management purposes, whether for tracking or test use cases in their different cycles. We log everything on Jira and are very dependent on it. We are customers of Jira and I'm senior quality assurance person.

We've seen a benefit from the tracking of the release sizes and their status, it's very clear and simple, and the UI for Jira is easy to understand. 

Jira has a good dashboard. If I'm running an automated test script on different levels, say API automated or UI automated, and want to track automation status in the dashboard, I can get the overall status. I know how many cases are automated with the API or the UI and how many cannot be automated. It's a good feature. 

Jira could be more user friendly. When I started using it, I faced difficulties in different project selections and there were issues with bugs. It was not straightforward. I feel it could offer an improved user experience. I have a small issue that whenever I log out there's a bug and for a fraction of a second, I'll get a notification that then disappears before I can do anything about it. 

I've been using Jira for quite some time. 

From a performance perspective, I have faced many issues, some bugs and glitches, and there has been some down time. In general, it's a stable solution. 

The solution is scalable; we have BA, QA and Dev Ops people all using Jira. Everyone has  access, but certain users have access to certain areas. It's our test management tool so we use it a lot, everything is tracked on Jira and our reports come from there. 

We haven't used the technical support.

I used TFS before Jira. They are similar tools but I found TFS to be a more complicated solution.

The deployment took a few hours, some aspects were more complicated than others. 

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect. 

I rate Jira seven out of 10. 

I am working on a project which involves moving Jira onto the Azure boards. We use Azure DevOps for our repository and pipelines and we are looking to move on to Azure boards from JIRA for our ticketing or change request management.

Jira has helped our company because the board layouts are easier to use and has helped us see what is happening in regards to stories and bugs.

The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira.

The flexibility of defining your columns that can possibly contain multiple statuses is important. When you have teams that are different levels of granularity, the C levels, only care that it is in progress, but the leads want to know that it is in QA or development. You can accomplish these types of things with JIRA.

The biggest complaint industry-wide about JIRA is they need to purchase additional extensions, such as reporting automation. If they could provide some additional extensions from the initial purchase it would be a huge benefit.

When using the service desk and the developer, the transition could be better between the two. For example, we asked the support desk to send a ticket over to the development and it was a little bit cumbersome. We had to recreate another ticket for development, then we had two tickets, one service desk, and one development. It would be beneficial if the process was more smooth between those two packages.

I have been using Jira for approximately eight years.

The stability of the cloud version of JIRA is very good. However, we did have some issues with the on-premise version but the issue could have been because our servers were overloaded.

The scalability has been very good.

We have approximately 40 people using this solution in my organization, which is mostly everyone. It is used by many departments, such as project offices, development, and coding QA. The only department that is not involved in the use of the solution is the company support. I had worked at a company previously that used the JIRA service desk for their support and it worked well.

I have previously used DevOps and Rally.

JIRA installation is complicated. It is similar to a lot of other systems, the more flexible they tend to be more complicated they become.

We do the maintenance of the solution which is adding users and moving them around. The solution is very hands-off, it does not require a lot of maintenance.

We currently are evaluating other options and are doing a study to see if we are going to continue using JIRA or move to something else.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to contact an expert. 

This solution is a top-of-the-line CRM, I have used the others solutions, and it has the most flexibility and the best visibility.

I rate Jira a nine out of ten.