Jira Reviews

Usability for our users and flexibility for our admins.

JIRA and Confluence have taken off here like wildfire. Our users enterprise-wide have made excellent use of these tools.

Performance and Scalability in a large enterprise could be improved.

4-5 years.

Not with deployment, but growing pains as fast as we have grown in the last few years with JIRA. We now have 7 different instances of JIRA.

Yes – we wished we would have stayed on the simple path of using the product with fewer add-ons and customization. Most of the complexity is add-ons and customizations that we have chosen to do and likely we have taken some of those too far.

Yes...We would really like to see JIRA scale into 10-100 millions issue range.

Took some getting used to but great!

Took some getting used to but great!

We switched because we wanted to remove over 3000 Lotus Notes applications. 30-40% of those applications were replaced with JIRA or Confluence.

Atlassian products seem to be very simple and straightforward if you use it simply and stick with what comes with the product. The complexity and complication comes when you introduce add-ons and customizations. The other observation is that Atlassian products seem to be less ‘conditioned’ for larger enterprises.

The ROI on Atlassian products has been tremendous. It’s been well worth the investment!

We chose JIRA/Confluence as they were solutions we can get up and running quickest, and also cheap.

Keep it simple. . . minimize the add-ons and customizations!

We use it for Kanban boards, bug reports, and some workflows.

It has enabled us to keep track of features or projects. Previously, we used to manually keep track in Office. We now have a centralized repository for all the information.

I like that you can comment almost anywhere, and you can leave a trail. That's the most useful thing.

I don't know if it's the way it's deployed in the organization, but the interface we are provided is not as customizable as other tools. The multi-language report is not enabled in our installation. I don't really know if it's something related to the tool or our installation.

It is pretty good. I haven't had any problem with it.

We haven't had any problems with scalability. It doesn't feel slow. It hasn't been down. It's working pretty well.

Its users are in the hundreds, but I don't know specifically. It is available to everyone in the company, and it could potentially be used by anyone. We all are allowed to use it and implement it as we see fit.

I have local technical support. That's our first line of support, and they contact Jira technical support if needed. 

I'm just a user. I don't know.

General advice would be to find out about customization features and multi-language support features.

I'm not a heavy user of this solution. From what I've used, I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for all issue reporting. The business uses it and we use it in IT as well. Any issue, anything from the help desk to software issues use Jira. It can house test plans, test sets, test executions, and provide some reporting. It's the reporting that's important for us.

The product has formalized the workflow process for reporting tracking and stacking and processing issues. It's also added some formal approvals, just for the purpose of formalization of a process workflow.

If you're using it in an agile shop, the traceability between epic story's test case defects is very helpful. 

I like that all of the team members on an agile team can use it. No one is in a separate application.

The stability is good.

The product can scale, so long as you have storage.

The reporting needs to be better. Being able to do some test management would be useful. In the tool, it would be ideal if they could give you some out-of-the-box reports for things like requirement coverage and regression and things of that nature.

I've used the solution off and on for about four years. I used it when it first came out to do some evaluation and we implemented it at a startup. That was when it first started. I've probably only really used it for about eight months on a daily basis.

We have had no downtime, and therefore I don't have anything to say that would be negative. It seems to be quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

As long as a company has the money for storage, it's scalable to any size. A small company can use it or an enterprise-level company can use it. It works for both.

Currently, we have less than 1,000 users in our organization using the solution.

Jira is extensively used in our organization.

We do plan to increase usage as well. The company purchased it so that it would be scalable. There's not a solid plan right now to add measurable users or increase the size, however, we know that it's available and that's what we were looking for - something that is scalable. The plans are to grow and as that growth happens, either organically, or via the purchase of other financial entities, we can grow the size of the database application and the number of the users.

I did not personally use technical support. I have worked several months with the people who have, and they say that the support is very good.

If the company used something previous to Jira, it was before my time. It possibly could have been Sharepoint, however, I was not with the company at that time.

The solution was implemented before I came to the company.

That said, my understanding is that the company tried to use as much out-of-the-box functionality as possible and it was quite an effort. They spent quite a lot of time formalizing workflows and things of that nature. In the end, it was very well thought out.

We do have a team for maintenance and what takes the most time with any upgrade is going through the changes, the enhancements, the defect fixes, and things like that. The actual time that it takes to physically update it is pretty minimal. However, going through the documentation and meeting with the team to make sure that we have testing covered prior to upgrading is work. We have a test environment prior to pushing it to production. That's what really takes time. It's not the physical update. An update might take two and a half hours and there's a lot of data in there.

My understanding is the company used professional services from Jira and also got some training and stuff of that nature.

We're just customers and end-users.

We just upgraded the solution. We are on the latest version.

I'd advise potential users to make sure that they talk to the people who are going to be testing and make sure that they know, what metrics they need before they pick a tool, any tool - even if it isn't Jira.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

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.

We primarily use the solution for project management. 

What I like about this product is how you can manage from the project to the deployment, even using Bamboo or using Bitbucket. 

Being able to automatize the deployment of the solution has been great. 

We're not only managing documentation on the project task, but we're also handling the technical assets that are under the project. 

What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product. They're not able to develop over Jira, even for normal technical activity signing. For managing the project better or for task documentation or even managing tickets or service needs in another way, there needs to be better customization or better apps.

I'm really obsessed with the idea of reducing the number of activities to have a general retail workplace. However, if we need to expand the use of the Atlassian suite to all the teams, all the people, we need something that can be, easier to use and has the ability to offer more guidance to those users that usually don't work with these type of tools. For example, ServiceNow doesn't fit all the needs in the company, however, it can be configured. You can develop so many different functions over it. I don't want to increase the payments and the number of licenses that I have to buy from ServiceNow. I would prefer to have my own developed team and try to define everything on our side - including the functionalities that I would like to build for those proposed functionalities.

I've used the solution in a structured way for about 18 months now. 

We have looked at and worked with several content-managed solutions in the last year. We're trying to build our retail workplace using ServiceNow, and, at the same time, increasing the use of the Atlassian suite. ServiceNow, we use for post activities such as service ticketing, service managing, and so on. 

The introduction of agile has moved us onto the Atlassian suite, which has been really very, very useful. At the same time, we have a partial solution that has been built over Salesforce, using the Salesforce development environment. 

Fortunately, we have so many different solutions for file management. We have FileNet, we have OneDrive. We have SAP. In terms of file management, we have so many different solutions, even Dropbox.

We are using the Jira service center and we are using Trello and Confluence as well.

The deployment is pretty straightforward. It's not overly difficult. We are able to automatize a lot of it. 

We're an Atlassian partner. 

In terms of project management, Trello is not enough of a solution to manage complex projects and maybe some new functions can be developed. I'm not saying that Jira has to develop that, or that Atlassian has to develop that. Perhaps there is something that we can do to create a referring community to develop those new use cases and more simple use cases, and, at the same time, use them for more general purposes in the company. Atlassian fits in the technical side, in the IT side really well. It just needs to move to become friendly in a retail workspace environment, outside of its traditionally technical background.

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

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We are using the recent version.

We use it for story and sprint planning, as well as for reporting. 

The solution benefits our organization with its agility, planning and visibility in respect of large teams spanning different geo locations.

The tool is well known and popular to use. 

The sprint planning is pretty good, as are the reporting piece, retrospective reporting and the planning board. 

It is a great tool from the planning perspective, such as that of capacity and sprint planning. 

As the solution is highly configurable, it has very poor governance. There is nothing which comes out of Jira to go into the product. It is free for all and anyone can create with it. This means that the responsibility lies with the user community to create some form of governance. 

Moreover, the solution is geared to small teams. It lacks scalability. 

The tool is not good at the enterprise level. This means that, depending on how the person installed the software, the issue of performance may increase commensurate with the number of projects. While plugin for x-ray exists, it is not that mature in test management. Although it's a good tool for many of the smaller clients, once a person goes deeper into it, it's not there, even though it will get the work done. 

It is a less desirable solution in controlled environments, such as science, banking and finance, in which there is a need for certain compliance supports.

The solution is not that great for audit histories. It's a great tool when much integration is involved. With cold products, things can always be achieved through other means. 

When the teams collaborate, they need multiple metrics to be tracked. With this comes the issue of direct impacts, such as the appearance of one's UI and its usability aspects. The screens have changed greatly in appearance over the last ten years. This is an issue which every software dealt with in line with the growth of usage and complexity. 

I have been using Jira for nearly ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is good for small teams. It lacks scalability. It does not work well when it must be used across multiple domains and multiple teams which need to collaborate. 

The Atlassian strategy is that the solution be open to all to encourage collaboration. But, this raises the issue of how to control the data input and the tool and all that it comprises in respect of the reporting that is generated. This means that poor data quality in the geo projects will equate with poor reporting on it. 

As such, supplementation by the teams or organizations using it is required. They must come up with their own rules of governance about who can do what. 

The product is not being extensively used at the moment. It is a niche product. I have not seen usage behind it. It involves ID users for certain teams. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. This will depend on the feedback we receive. 

I have not made use of technical support. 

We did not switch to Jira. It is simply one of the products that we also use in addition to an in-house micro focus ALM. 

While I was not involved in the initial setup, my understanding is that it is simple. Atlassian puts out many different products and I cannot say for certain how I would have handled ones which are on-premises, compared to those which are cloud-based or server products. 

I am not in a position to comment on the licensing. 

We make use of the solution on Jira Cloud. 

While I cannot say with certainty, I would estimate the number of users in our organization at a thousand-plus. 

This figure contemplates different departments, such as that involving support. 

My advice is that someone in a large enterprise first give consideration to the issue of governance before implementing the solution. For a small team it is ready to use straight out of the box. One need just try and stay with the default workflows. There is no need to overengineer the product. 

The product is good, stable and very cost-effective for small teams. These are some of its advantages. 

I rate Jira as a seven out of ten. 

I believe we are using the latest on-premises version. 

Confluence, not Jira, is the most convenient feature with Atlassian. We use the product for knowledge management, the use of creating or documenting knowledge into a knowledge base.

I would like to have a future-proof idea of the cost and the roadmap for my class. This is in light of the fact that they are switching things up, promoting the cloud service and mixing different support levels.

The CMDB and knowledge platforms that are in the background of the ticketing tool should also be addressed. 

I have been using Jira for five years. 

When it comes to the question of stability, this depends wholly on the amount of resources provided to the virtual servers, since we make on-premises use. 

We have internal Atlassian experts, so it is tough for me to comment on the technical support.

The price of the solution could be lower.

We are currently in the initial stages of contemplating a switch from Jira. 

My advice is to work closely with Atlassian to make sure that all the designs are future-proof.

It is tough for me to Rate the solution. There are features needing improvement, but also many good things about Atlassian. As such, I rate Jira as a seven out of ten.