Jira Reviews

We have various use cases for it, one being for object storage. It's a government entity so that's what they use. 

It has improved my organization because it gives us collaboration. 

The most valuable feature is that it is somewhat flexible. 

It's a pain getting it on the public, it costs too much.

It's also difficult to migrate through, things don't always tie-up. It's not easy to use and it's not as intuitive as it should be. I stay away from it as much as possible.

I have been using Jira on and off for ten years. 

I would say that it's stable.

I would rate it a five out of ten because it gets the job done. 

Hybrid Cloud

Managing our entire product development life cycle, as well as all test cases and test runs. That include at least 4 developers, 2 business analysts and 2 testers, all working on sprints. 

Before JIRA we had to create our PRDs, our product definitions requirements in another feature, then using another tool to organize the combine with all the JIRA tasks.

Now with JIRA Tasks, our product technicians can use the JIRA module to manage tasks by creating PRDs and user stories in JIRA, or even in Confluence (another product from Atlassian). Then, our PBAs, our business analysts, use Confluence to create all the definitions, which we can then use to create user stories in JIRA using the combine module.

The most important is the Agile management, because we use Agile in our everyday tasks. Also, the task manager is important.

Right now, the Task Management feature and Confluence are separate from JIRA itself. So, we have this problem where sometimes these modules don't talk to each other the way we expect them. So many times, links created automatically from new tools apart from another tool which didn't work, therefore you have to manually go into the task, even though the link is right there.

Another example, in JIRA you create a test sessions with user stories, then buttons from the user stories can automatically change the status of a test session from started, completed, or paused, which doesn't work. Therefore, there is a problem there: inter-module conversations.

Three to five years.

It's pretty stable. It doesn't go offline very often.

It works great for scalability. We have many users with more users coming. Our current users are on the road and can work.

Right now, we have a technician, a specialist, in another country that works closely for JIRA. So, we don't have technical support directly with them.

I used just Excel sheets. JIRA was a major improvement for a variety of reasons listed in other answers.

Even though, JIRA was a new thing at the company that I worked for, it was pretty easy to setup. The product is fast, so you don't have any frustration with installation. Account creation was pretty easy, too. Not too complicated.

We tried Microsoft, but it only supports task management. It doesn't support creating test sessions the way we like to them. Also, it doesn't support product definition the way JIRA supports us and Microsoft's general interface is a whole mess, so we prefer JIRA.

Learn every module you use (a lot!) before jumping to other modules, like we did, with JIRA Testing and Atlassian Confluence, because the conversation between those modules can be troublesome if you don't know exactly what it wants.

The product helps us a lot. It can handle the main features that it's supposed to in a proper manner, so we don't have any frustrations in our daily activities.

JIRA gives you all the features you need for organizing your work within one team and across teams in a very efficient and structured way. It is more than just a ticketing system and more than just a project management tool.

It is very user-friendly and very structured which makes it very easy to ask people from non-technical departments to come and join you within JIRA projects.

The amount of plugins is astounding, and many of them have a surprisingly high quality. While some are free, some other plugins are very expensive, but at the same time worth the money (at least this is what I think).

JIRA could be basically used to organize the work of a whole company, which is why it is so valuable.

JIRA helped us to work across teams and sites, while staying efficient and reducing communication overhead to a minimum. Since it plays very well with other Atlassian products, you can make sure that other members of the staff find JIRA issue related information much faster than in the traditional way (e.g. asking, search engine etc.).

JIRA is written in JAVA and therefore a bit hard to trouble-shoot. It also is very expensive once you have a lot of users. And since it is very flexible, it can also lead to situations where you loose overview of permissions, custom issue types etc. It also takes too long to create your own custom fields and issue types since you have to work yourself trough many layers of abstraction and features. But this is a well-known downside of flexibility and openness.

I have been using JIRA for more than 2,5 years.

No, deployment and upgrading was always straightforward.

Sometimes, it seems that JIRA gets a little slow. But is is very hard to say if the network connection, the underlying system or JIRA itself is the one to blame.

Not yet.

I used a heavily modified version of Sugar CRM, which was basically a custom solution. Never again.

The initial setup was very easy.

Since JIRA gets really expensive when having a lot of users (and maybe plugins), you should try to avoid letting everyone in by default. Maybe it is better to only give those users access who really could benefit from this product.

1. Its agile support is fantastic! Whether you are an agile expert, or just starting for both scrum and kanban teams, the whole agile process is supported
2. Requirements log
3. Story board
4. Dashboards are a great feature to stay on top of what is going on in all the projects you are managing
5. It's accessible from practically anywhere, whether you're on a mobile device or desktop across many OSs and browsers

Integrating JIRA with HP Quality Center gave our dev team and management a new window to participate/track the defects Testing Team reports from. This integration is absolutely powerful and made defect sharing with different parties a peace of cake. Now we, the testing team, can report defects on our own "beloved" HP QC, and these defects gets sent automatically or upon request to different JIRA Projects and to different project parties and teams.

I would say test management, as it's a generic issue tracking tool, and not designed specifically for test management. So, the only support for test cases is the ability to mark them as passed or failed as part of the test execution, and that's the whole test, not step by step like Quality Center. It does have many test management add-ons that can be bought, and some of them can perform close functionality to what HP Sprinter does, like Bonfire, but it does not provide video recording. It doesn't provide version control for Test Cases, and integration with Test Automation and Performance Testing tools is cumbersome.

I hate the fact that I have to buy an add-on for each feature I need. Some people might see this as positive thing since you buy only what you need, but again, not all add-ons are provided by Atlassian, and hence support and quality is subject to different providers, which is again is cumbersome, and not many people would go on with.

Reporting also needs improvement, as I need to be able to create my own custom reports and be able to export them, and screen shots doesn't work all the time.

If you are an agile development team, go for it. I would advise that f your dev team have problems accessing HP Quality Center, go for it and integrate Jira with Quality Center.

Coming from projects that rely on Agile / SCRUM, one of the essential features in JIRA is the support for these methodologies, represented by the Agile Board functionality. This is the place where our team interacts with JIRA as part of the daily routine by updating tasks, estimations and adding relevant comments. This is also where Sprint planning takes place and where support for Sprint retrospective and analysis is offered in the form of reports like the burndown chart or the velocity report.

With the introduction of Agile, the need of having a common, synchronized view on the project tasks assignment, their completion status and the effort spent became critical for a geographically distributed and self-organizing team. Instead of spending time on e-mail exchanges or longer meetings, JIRA provided instant access and a unified view to all the required information, enabling the team to properly apply the Agile / SCRUM methodology and become more efficient in the way they communicate. Being instantly notified when an issue is changed by someone working half way across the globe and being able of giving immediate feedback is a tremendous capability.

I would like to see JQL extended to return other types of information than just sets of issues. To give a simple example: a COUNT-like operator to determine the number of issues that match a given criteria. Today this is possible through JIRA's REST API or by writing custom plugins, but it would be nice to have it out of the box directly via JQL.

I have been using JIRA for more than two and half years in several different software development projects.

None so far.

None so far.

None so far.

Customer Service: I actually found all the information I needed on the Atlassian documentation pages and forums and never ran into the need to call the Atlassian customer service.Technical Support: Excellent so far, considering the fact that the existing documentation gives almost all the required answers without the need to call or e-mail support.

In a previous project we have used Microsoft's .NET framework and the suite of support technologies like Team Foundation Server (TFS). TFS contains an issue tracking system fully integrated with Visual Studio and the only extra thing needed was the equivalent of an Agile board. This we found in the form of Telerik's TFS Work Item Manager and Project Dashboard, which offered similar functionality to JIRA's Agile Board.

The initial setup required a bit of thinking on how to organize and when to use the different types of JIRA issues, what fields are relevant in the context of our team processes and what kind of dashboard information is required, not only for the team but also for the stakeholders. This is not so much JIRA related as it is process-related. Once all of this is agreed upon, JIRA makes things easy by selecting for example Agile SCRUM as methodology, configuring the appropriate issue screens and workflows, defining the relevant filters and adding widgets to the dashboards.

I believe this goes together with my earlier comments. The day to day cost of using JIRA is minimal, since each team member shares the responsibility of keeping issues up to date so that the overall status is in sync with the real project status. There are also the occasional changes to JIRA board, issue or dashboards configuration driven by the evolution of team processes, which is a normal consequence of being an Agile team.

I recommend JIRA Agile to anyone looking for a mature, easy to use and customizable issue tracking system, especially in the context of large, geographically distributed teams. I also believe it is important not to spend excessive time trying to configure it to cover every process and situation from the very beginning, but to focus on the essentials first and then adapt as the project evolves.

We have really noticed an improvement in the way we work.

It's a really good product. I feel it really changed the way we work and at this time we're not looking to move to another platform.

The features on offer are great. It has everything we need.

The solution needs more integrations with Azure DevOps OnPrem.

I can't speak to any missing features. It has what we need overall. 

Company-wide we started using Jira this year, however, I've been using it since last year. The company hasn't used it for that long.

We aren't looking for another solution at this time. We're happy with Jira. 

As far as I know, we are just a customer. We don't have a partnership or anything with Jira.

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

Public Cloud

We use this solution to manage our projects.

Jira is a great software. There is not much to complain about, other than it doesn't fit very well into our current Microsoft environment.

Jira as a structure has Confluence for documentation, and for what it is offering it is a strong suit with Atlassian.

The only thing in our current setup that is a bit difficult is that Jira is a bit of a black box. Only we see it, our customers do not. I know that we can change it but we have not done the work to do it.

Jira is not compatible with our current Microsoft infrastructure. 

We are using SharePoint along with WorkPoint in our environment, which is used for document management and process management. For projects, it is a better connection between HelpDesk and the projects. Moving into SharePoint would help.

If Jira would be interested in offering a SharePoint version, it would be beneficial.

I have been working with Jira for approximately five years.

Jira is a stable product.

We have approximately 50 users in our company who use Jira.

I am satisfied with the technical support of Jira. It's fine.

I have tested Plumsail Helpdesk. There's only one thing that worries me. Due to GDPR, we cannot use email yet in Plumsail. That is the only thing, use email to create tickets.

I don't know where the mailbox is in Plumsail, otherwise, it just ends up in us using SharePoint. It looks very promising.

It is very affordable at the entry-level. When you get larger, the pricing becomes very, very steep. It is the same for many other solutions, but I find it expensive when you get larger.

We are currently using Jira but want to move the help desk to SharePoint. 

We have a Microsoft environment. SharePoint HelpDesk would fit better into our environment. As we are larger than we originally started, we have to make some changes to our current setup.

I also find Plumsail HelpDesk quite interesting.

I don't know what to compare it to. It is not an A product, but it's a strong piece.

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten.

On-premises

The integrations with other solutions, such as BitBucket for pull requests and the check traceability, are pretty good. That's about it. I'm not a big fan of the solution overall.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

The solution, in general, is a poorly designed and confusing product. The user experience is not ideal and the user interface is convoluted. The interface in particular could use a big refresh as the actual navigation within the interface is not particularly smooth.

The work items structure is not hierarchical and that needs to be changed. It's too flat.

There's excessive scope for customizing the project and the platform. Therefore, there are too many integrations, which leads to very high levels of complexity in terms of management.

Key indicators that are useful to Agile teams such as burn-down charts or burn-up charts, cumulative flow control, et cetera, are available, however, they're not easily accessible from the default user view, whereas they should always be present. Key indicators must always be present. They actually take a couple of clicks to actually get to them.

I've been using the solution for two years. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is very stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable in that sense.

The solution is scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so.

We have about 200 people who use the solution currently. They're mostly software developers but they're end-users as well.

While the solution is being used extensively, we're fine with maintaining our current level of usage.

Technical support is very good. We're satisfied with the level of support that is provided to us. They are knowledgeable and responsive.

I've personally used lots of other solutions, however, when I moved to this company, they already had Jira deployed. Jira is the only system of its type that's been used here.

The initial setup is not very complex. It was pretty straightforward. If a company wants to implement it, the setup should be pretty simple.

There's ongoing integration work on a project like this. Therefore, the initial setup was only a few days, however, then, as you add things to it, you add more time to the deployment.

We are a customer and end-user of the product.

I would highly recommend not using this product if your focus is software development. Organizations should seriously consider alternatives such as Azure DevOps or TFS, which are more focused on modern interfaces and more accurately modeled to modern workflows.

I'd rate the solution at about a three out of ten. It doesn't really offer a whole lot that's actually usable from a software development context beyond extremely simple and free alternatives.

On-premises