Jira Reviews

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.

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.

We are using Jira as our help desk solution, as well as for managing our software development efforts.

Jira has helped with respect to managing our software development, although it does not suit us well as a help desk.

The most valuable feature is managing software development.

The help desk and services management features are in need of improvement.

I have been using Jira for five years.

This is a stable product.

The scalability is fine. We have fifty people in the company who are using it.

I have not used the vendor's technical support.

The initial setup was done before I joined the company.

I am currently in the process of searching for better help desk management solutions.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to ensure that it meets your requirements. For example, we have been trying to use it for help desk management, but have found that is not well suited for this task.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This software is implemented in the different departments of the company since it allows us to plan, organize and verify or monitor the different projects we develop day by day, thus improving communication and workflow.

The implementation of JIRA in the different business departments has allowed us to increase labor productivity since the teams work much more efficiently thanks to the tools provided by this powerful platform, which has made the communication much more specific and better. And when planning any task, the whole team is aware of every detail.

The most valuable features or functions that I have found in this software are several but mainly that it is a platform that gives the user the option to customize its interface to the point that it can be fully adapted to the team that implements it. This generates a great advantage since it is much easier for users to adapt to it and be able to work in a much more comfortable and highly effective way, in addition to providing tools that can be followed up on tasks or projects and give priority to them. It is really useful because in this way the team can focus on those who need a much closer delivery date.

This product or software still requires improvements, especially in its interface since its learning curve is somewhat high because it offers so many features that the user tends to get confused, or the software adaptation time is much longer than it should be. Besides, its configuration is not very simple, and its support team sometimes does not respond immediately, so it is often necessary to solve problems on their own.

Although it still requires many improvements, it is a software that is kept updated to ensure that its users can be much more pleased when using it.

Its scalability is somewhat limited since it is based on the number of users, and when wanting to obtain a greater number of users, the prices are somewhat high.

Their customer service sometimes tends to fail because problems are not attended to immediately, but it is something that is not consecutive. But nevertheless, I believe that in an emergency this could bring problems.

We have not used another solution previously.

The initial configuration was complex because it is not simple, and that's because the software does not provide enough information to understand it.

It was initially implemented by the suppliers since it is somewhat complex and the team was not yet ready to perform it, but they had a really positive performance.

The investment has been fair since we have obtained advantages from its implementation, mainly because productivity has increased.

It should be very clear about the plan that you want to implement and what number of users will use it. In this way, you will pay for what you really need and will cover your needs since this software is based on the number of users implementing the same plan.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

This software is ideal for tracking problems, managing, planning and carrying out real-time monitoring of the tasks or projects you want to develop in a much simpler way and in the shortest possible time. So I think that if you are looking for a solution that is based on more than the management, this is the indicated choice.

We run pilots and product development using this for Agile and Scrum applications, in mechatronic product development.

It has performed well so far. We like it, we would like to expand it.

It's a tool that won't change the way that you work, but it supports the way that you work. Agile is changing your teams, changing your organization, the way that you work, and then JIRA will help you doing that across multiple locations, for instance. 

We don't do physical boards. I run a team with four locations, in three time zones. I need to work with online tools, and this is where the tool helps me. It helps me to use virtual Scrum boards across four locations, three time zones, and to plan my work.

The most valuable features are 

• the easy handling
• drag and drop
• what you see is what you get.

It's, smooth, accessible. It fully supports the Scrum approach, and the Agile way of working, and it has Agile thinking behind it, so this is very much helpful.

I struggle with Epics, how they are implemented in JIRA, because they don't work like any other Story, in a good way. I see a list of Epics, but although I can order them, there are some mismatches with how the Epics are used compared to what Scrum expects, or what Story mapping expects an Epic to be. 

For instance, if I rate an Epic, the Story points, and I rate the related user Stories, the Story points, they all count together. They're all summed up together. So, the overall Story points for the Epic, including the Stories, is double of the Story points. It just doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I had to delete all my Story points on the Epics because they were counted including the Story points. This is not correct, and I would immediately improve that. 

I would like to see visualization of release planning. I can list the releases and I can give dates to releases, but to show how they are happening on a timeline, I would need to order the Portfolio part. But just for this, it may be too much to use the Portfolio for that.

The stability of the solution has been near perfect. I haven't faced yet any technical interruptions. 

There was one issue we had, technically, when we added 30 more users. The server hung. I don't know whether it was because of the tool, or what the reason was.

Scalability, I can't really touch yet. We have small scale approaches. We are about to scale. I think the idea about how to scale is not yet clear. It works perfectly for a team, that is pretty clear. How you do this for more teams, I haven't investigated this too much. Maybe the tool contains this, but currently it's not fully clear to me.

We switched because the visualization is a great help. So, really to transfer from a physical Scrum board to a virtual Scrum board implemented in JIRA, as well as so teams can work with us, and collaborate with us, on a Story to produce a result. Recently we tried to work with PDC task management. As a team, we had to learn it. It's possible as well, but not as easy and flexible as JIRA.

I'm not the selector of the vendor, but from what I can tell, from what our IT selects, the vendor should be 

• available for global support, should be accessible in 24 hours, if there's a larger issue
• able to collaborate with large enterprises, which sometimes have different cultures, different languages
• able to integrate into the existing work environment - we have this tool, and that tool; the tool should fit into our tool landscape
• able to provide training.

I would rate JIRA a nine out of 10. It's not a 10 because it's inconsistent, sometimes, in how it acts and reacts, like my example with the Epics. But it's a high rating because it's user friendly, it's easy to use, you do not need much training on it. If you know how to work with Scrum, you can easily use it for your own work in a small team. For multiple teams, I'm not sure. I can't judge this because I haven't done this yet.

In terms of requirements management, the ability to write the descriptions and acceptance criteria are helpful. We can also group the stories by epic and associate stories by themes. There are tags that help us categorize stories. We can attach documents such as use cases and spreadsheets for detailed information as well as link to other stories.

We are able to track the development work for a particular story or set of stories through the Kanban board easily. The tool helps with team collaboration and raises visibility to the backlog of work to those who are interested in the project’s requirements.

We spend hours and sometimes days looking through completed stories in order to determine how to manage a defect in our existing system. We used to use Word and Excel for requirements documentation, and thought primitive, still, I was able to find specific requirements for just about any topic in a matter of minutes by using various searches and by simply knowing that a requirement probably resides in a specific document. I would ask that Altassian improve its keyword search capability and provide reports that could group information in the way I want it grouped for re-use by maintenance and production support teams when troubleshooting an existing system.

We've used it for three years for managing the product and sprint backlog of our agile projects. The product was never designed for requirements management yet our organization still insists we can and will use it to manage requirements. We considered some add-ons to the product but so far.

I am not aware of any issues with the deployment.

I am not aware of any issues with the stability.

I am not aware of any issues with the scalability.

From what I can tell the technical support is adequate. I do not deal with Altassian so I cannot provide a valid answer.

I was not involved in the decision to use this product. Our Product Owner team made some recommendations for add in products and stand-alone ones; however our recommendations were rejected due to cost considerations. Previously we used Excel, Word and Visio to represent the requirements. We stored the documents in a common share and versioned the documents each time changes were made.

We have a complex implementation. I do not know if the initial set up was straight forward. We have many, many teams across the country using JIRA. Since we have a single implementation used by all teams. I can see all the projects and the stories etc. by logging in with my credentials.

We use Jira to manage what is happening in our projects, such as application development lifecycles.

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.

I have used Jira within the past 12 months.

Jira is a reliable solution.

I have found Jira to be scalable.

The price of Jira could be lower.

I rate Jira an eight out of ten.

We use Jira for software development and issue tracking, enhancement requests, and software lifecycle management.

Jira has benefited the organization because it's necessary for doing our job well. We would need to have Jira or a similar tool. For example, it's could be similar to working with documents, you need Word or a similar tool.

The most valuable features of Jira are all the integrations with other systems. It's not the best in any specific area but it has lots of plug-ins and integrations.

Jira could improve the workflow, screen, and field configurability. They are lagging behind other solutions, such as Allegra in work system configurability.

It depends on your usage pattern because if it's more configurable, you can configure it to be a very different kind of tool which is a benefit.

I have been using Jira for approximately 10 years.

The performance is not very good for Jira but the reliability is good.

Jira can handle a lot of tasks. In my project, we have approximately 50,000 issues to be resolved and it worked well. However, the overall solution is slow.

We have approximately 25 employees using Jira in my organization of a total of 2,000 employees.

I use Jira moderately while other of my colleagues use it daily.

I have not used the support from Jira.

I have been using Allegra previously.

I was not around for the initial setup. However, I tried to configure it later and it is not easy. It is not as easy as it should be.

The solution is on the cloud, there is minimal maintenance.

The price of Jira is reasonable.

My advice to others thinking about implementing Jira is if you only want it for the standard flows and use it as an issue tracker in a software development setting, it is a good solution. We are using the online version. If you are in need of changing workflows or appearance, fields, screens, et cetera, Jira is not able to do this well or it's not possible at all.

Jira has found its place in our organization and it does those tasks. They should focus on speed and stability, and in that order. It's excellent with regards to preexisting integrations but it is poor at configurability.

Whether Jira is a good solution for you depends on your use case. From what I have seen creating different workflows in Jira is not good.

I rate Jira a five out of five.