Jira Reviews

The features of the Technical Account Management (TAM) which have been most valuable for us are understanding the limitations of tools, suggested sizing and approach for operation teams, and suggested approaches for onboarding and educations.

The TAM provided good insight as to how we can more effectively perform troubleshooting, and scale down operational costs.

Co-location. Working out times with someone on the West Coast is painful. Also more ROI material. Big blue can spin out ridiculous documents that executives love as to why spending millions of dollars on IBM will somehow make us richer.

The TAM was able to assist us with issues we had involving deployment.

It was a struggle with TAM vs. Premier but eventually we were able to address some stability issues. We had an app crashing every other day for several weeks before it got the attention we thought this contract would bring.

In terms of the TAM and scalability the only issue was just an upsell to datacenter really. But the TAM is helping look at forecasting triggers etc to understand the need for more instances. It is really difficult to get any sizing recommendations for horsepower though. The feedback is “well every customer is unique, so it’s difficult to say” and push to Premier Support for that.

A few mismatched tools. The Atlassian ecosystem has tools that do one function very well, but pull together nicely as a platform. Would like more consistent navigation and provisioning integration though like what is seen in On demand/cloud offering.

We had setup well before the TAM agreement. Pretty straightforward other then lack of sizing recommendations across the board.

Yes, TeamCollab, Home grown tools, Redmine, Jenkins, XLDeploy, Jazz/BuildForge and RTC. RTC and XLDeploy/Jenkins combo is still widely used and seen as an internal competitor.

I would recommend buying premier support for half the price and training your folks internally. It’s really not at all what we felt was advertised.

<ul> <li>Ability to search old issues.</li> <li>Ability to create your own tags and fields, ie customization.</li> <li>Easy of use. I have trained several non-it people in its usage and they all say it's really easy software to use.</li> </ul>

Our development team and it's functional staff have gained a better overview of the issues that are being worked on and what issued are getting delivered in a patch.

Perhaps a built in "Jira-Capture"

I've used it at 3-4 different companies over the last 8 years.

None

None

Current company, only a small userbase of about 25 users. Previous company perhaps 150-200 users - no issues whatsoever. (We're in Norway, not many people here.)

Previous solutions ... did not work - to put it mildly.

Straightforward setup.

In House

Previous product cost us about 100.000 NOK/yearly (USD 15,000/year). JIRA costs us perhaps around 25.000NOK (USD 3,800) on time setup cost with all the plugins we've purchased.

Time spent setting things up. Perhaps one or two hours a week on average for one developer.

No, did not evaluate other options, as JIRA fulfilled our need.

Go for it!

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.

For the past two years I have been administrating Jira for our enterprise organization, in which there are about 300 end users. Apart from an administrator, I'm also a hands-on Jira user now.

Our main uses for Jira include asset management, project management, Scrum project tracking, Kanban projects tracking, and cost tracking, as well as productivity measurement.

I feel the strongest feature of Jira is its workflow engine. It empowers us to automate our workflows within our organization. It's the one characteristic of Jira which I think can help any organization, be it in any domain. Also, its Scrum tracking capabilities are a great help, and these come out-of-the-box with Jira.

In the way it is deployed, I think Jira is too dependent on the third-party applications that are available in its marketplace. If we could get some of the basic functionalities which are offered by these third-party applications, that would be ideal because each time we need a new functionality, we have to purchase a new plugin as an add-on.

Then, on top of that, we have to keep paying the maintenance charge for those third-party applications along with Jira's maintenance cost. The functionalities of some of these plugins are pretty basic, which a user would expect out-of-the-box, instead of having to pay repeatedly for it.

Also, on the security front, if Jira could have a default, inbuilt encryption mechanism for all the data it stores, it would help organizations which handle sensitive data like healthcare or financial sectors.

I've been using Jira since 2020.

It's pretty stable and I haven't had major issues with it.

The current deployment is not that scalable. But when we go for an alternative deployment model such as the data center model, it's scalable.

We were on the server model for Jira, which is being discontinued in 2024. The data center model is pretty scalable. I think that shouldn't have any issues, but it is limited. I think the data center is limited to only two instances of Jira running in parallel. That should be sufficient, and I think with data center being the only on-premises deployment model, I think it's all right to have that.

Overall, I'd rate the support an eight out of ten. I don't see any glaring shortcomings but I do see certain things which could be addressed better in their support rather than just providing documentation and saying, "Please follow this documentation."

If they could provide on-call support for some of the issues and give us a path to follow, that would be sufficient. They don't need to sit down and resolve the issue for us. But if they could point us in the right direction, I would be satisfied with that.

That said, we do get that kind of support, sometimes. There is personalized support and we have a dedicated Jira expert who helps us with our tickets. But if we are stuck, and we are not able to find a solution for our problem, then we should have a second level of support, which could be an on-call support. That would help us better.

Positive

It was straightforward to set up Jira, even though it was on-prem. But to set up the supporting modules for Jira, like the web component (e.g. Apache) or the database component, requires a little bit more effort. The Jira application does provide support on that front, but the support is pretty limited, because they do not vouch for the other modules that aren't built in to Jira.

Apache is a web server that interacts with Jira and I think they should better support the deployment of Jira with web servers at any enterprise or cloud-level. That should be provided as part of the deployment journey itself. As it is currently, their support that helps us integrate Jira with Apache comes off a little short.

We have our own compliance team who applies security patches and those patches are available from Jira directly. The maintenance is pretty easy and we pay a maintenance fee for Jira software. If there is any issue with downtime or service is completely stopped and we are not able to handle it, Atlassian provides us their support. Maintenance is not much of an issue with Jira.

The license model which we were on was a perpetual license model, which is the server edition of Jira, but that is being discontinued by Atlassian, which I can understand from their standpoint (in order to better compete). The server model means that we buy the license and we do not pay anything for the licensing part year-on-year. It means it's a lifetime license, but we do pay 50% of the license fee for the maintenance with the server. That is the recurring cost for us.

When we go into the data center model, which is the only on-premises model that we have, and the cloud offering from Jira, Jira Cloud, then you can see that both of them are subscription-based models. Data center is a yearly license, and as for the cloud, you can either pay monthly or yearly, depending on your requirements.

But this kind of licensing structure is actually a little heavy on the organization when it comes to the budget, I would say. The licensing which we had was a perpetual license with a year-on-year maintenance charge which we had to pay, which was half of the licensing fee.

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

On-premises

We are using Jira mostly for the workflow dashboards for our projects. For example, for now, we are using the Kanban boards at team levels and also between team cooperation levels.

The links between tickets are very valuable and the boards I found to be configurable and usable.  The boards allow some level of extended configuration and they can be customized according to our project needs. Additionally, it is easy to use.

I'm mostly focusing on the requirements traceability with my thesis, the integration could improve for other tools. The companies are not only using Jira. For example, for the test cases or for the documents templates, we are using Polarion and we have been having some integration issues.

I have been using Jira for approximately four years.

Jira is easy to scale. We are implementing it for our team and for other teams, such as the relations teams. If you look at the different levels, such as the coordination levels, we are using it extensively on a daily basis.

In my team, we have less than 100 users using this solution but we also have other teams in our large company that could be using the solution. Our company has thousands of employees.

I have not contacted support.

The initial setup of Jira is straightforward.

We have a team in my organization that specifically handles the support of Jira.

The stability and performance are good, I have not had any complaints from people using Jira.

I would recommend Jira to others.

I have not used many tools to compare Jira with.

I rate Jira a seven out of ten.

On-premises

I use it for portfolio countdown. I work as an enterprise architect in the company, and my usage of Jira is minimal. Software engineers in our company use Jira very heavily, but I do not use it for my day-to-day work.

Cadence management has improved with Jira bots.

Its visual display and ease of use are most valuable.

Sometimes, the status change is too difficult. The change of status is not configured correctly. We sometimes have a limitation on the number of changes that each workflow can do, so we get very restricted with the changes, and status change gets difficult. It could be specific to our implementation. 

Once a story is closed, all the records, versions, and documentation associated with it are gone. We lose the traceability of what was done.

Color codes are currently missing in Jira. It is very limited in that aspect. I would like to be able to color certain impediments or features in red. I don't want to look at everything ticket by ticket. I just want to be able to look at the colors and see where we are. I am not getting that in Jira currently. Maybe it is there, and I don't know about it.

It is stable.

Once we moved to the cloud, it became better. Its scalability should be good.

We have more than 2,000 users. It is extensively used, and we want to use it more and more.

We never had a similar solution because we were a waterfall organization. After we moved to the Agile methodology, we started using Jira.

I was not a part of its implementation.

We most probably didn't evaluate other solutions. For Portfolio for Jira, we considered other solutions such as Planview or ServiceNow, but for the software engineering development life cycle, we probably didn't evaluate anything.

When we cut over to Agile, it was a huge task to get everybody on the same page in terms of the setup and rollout. When we looked at each other's desktops, it looked so different, and our central team did a lot of effort in making it all look the same. I saw the full central team being pulled forward to resolve these inconsistencies. 

It is so open that it allows inconsistency. So, you need to have a very strong and resourced team for the initial setup, implementation, and training. Otherwise, it can just fail. It could be a good thing that it is open, and everybody can have their own Jira, but finally, when the organization wants some statistics on what's happening at the enterprise level, you will not get any data. So, my suggestion to anyone cutting over to Jira is to have a very strong and resourced team centrally. You should roll out, learn, and come back to it. You should repeat this process and keep on learning and coming back. It has to be a very strong cycle.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

Public Cloud

We are using Jira for requirement and defect management. Not for DevOps purposes, only application development.

The dashboard and reports tracking and the setup updates quickly, I am very impressed with those features. Additionally, it is user-friendly.

The integration of Jira could improve. The solution should be able to integrate easily with other solutions, such as ERPs. There are times the solution can be slow and we have to reset it over and over again.

In an upcoming release, they should improve the user management features. For example, when I want to monitor a project as a CEO I do not want all the details but enough that I can understand. Additionally, these features should be accessible to me by mobile.

I have been using Jira for approximately two years.

Jira is a reliable solution for that medium-sized organizations. It's not for enterprise-level organizations, they have a long way to go.

The scalability has to be improved more because Jira currently is similar to a standalone solution with very limited integration. The integration with other products has to be more.

We have approximately 50,000 people using the solution.

We use our own IT department for the technical support of Jira.

The initial setup was complex.

We used to be on a perpetual license provided by our clients.

I would recommend this solution to others. Any new startup company can start with Jira immediately because it is now offered in the cloud.

I rate Jira a nine out of ten.

On-premises

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.

Private Cloud

Microsoft Azure