Jira Reviews

Jira is used primarily for ticketing, escalations, and tracking work in progress. It is also integrated with other tools within the company. Additionally, we open Jira to customers for ticketing purposes.

Jira is very useful and allows me to know who is in charge, who the owner is, and monitor and track work in progress.

Jira is quite easy to use and very simple from my point of view. It is very useful and direct and allows monitoring and tracking of work in progress. 

It integrates well with other tools in the company and is opened to the customer for ticketing. It is stable with no scalability issues experienced.

The user interface could be improved from a user experience standpoint. It needs to be more visually appealing and customizable to display key data effectively. 

There's room for improvement in the search tool, as it can be challenging to locate tickets directly.

I am quite new to the company and joined one year ago, however, Jira has been used for several years.

It's stable. I have never experienced any trouble concerning scalability or heard from customers about issues related to performance or usability.

Jira is stable, and I have not experienced any issues with scalability. Customers have not reported any problems related to this.

We use Teams officially at the company level, while the engineering team uses Slack.

We use Microsoft Copilot alongside Microsoft Office, integrating different AI engines according to customer choices.

The user interface needs improvement in terms of visual appeal and customization. The search feature could also be enhanced for better efficiency. Rating the overall solution would be nine 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. 

We use it within our organization. 

It's to handle all the main technology projects. It's for managing mobile banking, internet banking, all the new products, and all technology-related projects.

We get the big picture of what is going on within a project.

The solution allows us to provide access also to the senior management, to see how things are progressing and to point out quickly what's going on, and help to focus energy on the things that are not going well.

The main benefit we got from the product is the consolidation. 

I like the roadmap or the new version with the roadmap that the solution offers. For us, the roadmap was a really great feature.

It's got very good portfolio management. 

The initial setup is easy.

The licensing is transparent. 

It's a stable solution.

Scaling the product wouldn't be difficult. 

Whether you are an expert in Agile or just it's the first time you are talking about it, it's a very user-friendly tool. It's a very simple tool. It's not complicated and even the integration and the usage is very simple. You don't need to be an expert. 

Whether you have small teams or big teams, it's the right tool.

We'd like to use it with non-Agile projects in the future, however, right now, it is a very Agile-focused product.

In general, however, as a solution, it's quite complete and I cannot speak to any missing features. 

I've been using the solution for one year now. 

At the moment, we have not had any issues with stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

At this time, we are not tackling scaling at the moment. The organization is not mature enough to scale up.

That said, based on the experience we have had now, if we want to scale up, it should not be that difficult.

We have approximately 200 people on the solution currently. Those users are mainly comprised of the software development teams plus some portfolio managers and program managers and the project managers as well.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have not had any interaction with them as we haven't had any major issues. We have a contract with the integrator, however. While everything is going well for the moment, we would have access to assistance if we needed it.

I've used Clarity, however, it was used in another organization.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was very straightforward, very simple.

The full deployment took about three months.

We have four people capable of handling any management tasks related to Jira. 

We had the setup services handled by a reseller of Jira.

It was a very good experience. It was very fast compared to what we expected from the contract. It was a nice surprise.

We have yet to see an ROI as it's been just one year, including the three months of implementation. Maybe in the next six months, we can have visibility on that. For the moment, it's still in progress. We cannot say anything about any ROI.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for an enterprise-level license. 

It's quite similar to the pricing that they have on their website. It's quite transparent from their site. They have a package that charges per user, however, they have some scalable packages, for zero to 10 users, from 10 to 20, from 20 to 50, and so on. You can choose, depending on the size of your company or the number of users. The costs are quite transparent.

While everything is included in that package, the integration or the customization is a different fee. There's a project apart from the integrator, which may vary in cost.

We are just customers and end-users.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement, however, it's a very good solution.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I primarily use the solution for project management. 

The product is quite easy to use and simple to navigate.

The solution isn't too difficult to learn.

It's flexible and it can provide a lot of different options, such as dashboards, that you can create and manage. You can really tailor-make your own dashboard depending on your needs.  

It's quick and very stable. 

I don't see many issues while I'm using it.

You can basically communicate with all kinds of different teams that are using Jira and you can do that under the product, as a single platform.

Sometimes the solution doesn't communicate well with other platforms. It's quite difficult to integrate things and make the data flow from A to B, to Jira, and then back to other areas.

Nowadays, you see a lot of product management tools, like monday.com and they are very user-friendly. They offer features that allow for cosmetic changes, and you can actually change the color and the form to your own liking. ira is lacking some of that flexibility. It's not critical, however, for the wider user base, many would like to see that.

I've been using the solution for three years. It's been a while. 

Overall, the performance of the tool is quite reliable with few bugs or glitches, and it runs very fast in the browser It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution can handle a lot of tickets. I've seen it handle more than 10,000 with no problem. It's almost unlimited in terms of scalability.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

I'm using the latest version of the solution right now. I cannot speak to the exact version number we are on currently.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution, as it is quite powerful.

I'm overseeing the developments done in Jira. 

The thing that I do like about Jira is that it is relatively easy to understand. In some respects, you don't have to read a lot of ticket information, and you can start pulling down. Everybody is using it, and it works for a lot of people who are just doing enterprise development, cloud-based development, and things like that. It is built for the general audience. 

It is a good defect tracking tool. It has a lot of capabilities and functionalities. There are a lot of graphs and a lot of tracking. It can be sprint-driven if you want. There is a lot of data that you can pull out for estimations. It has got a lot of out-of-the-box functionalities that are kind of like the Jazz platform for out-of-the-box scrum and other such things. 

It also works well with all the integrated tools that you buy.

One thing that I don't like about Jira is that when you do an export, it only allows a thousand issues. So the export feature needs to be better. 

Another thing that I don't like about it is related to epics. There are times when you simultaneously want to have a story tied to two epics, one driving the content change and one driving the format of that evolution. It is not truly a parent-child relationship. It is a single-parent relationship to the stories. It would be nice if you had the capability to tie in multiple epics to a particular story. It is a rare case, but we have that. 

Setting up and executing a triage board should be simpler in the sense of how you do the admin. I come from a regulated space, and there should be easier control of who approves and reviews a system board to oversee all the defects. It should have easier out-of-the-box solutions to allow us to set up a triage board at the system level, the software board level that reports to the system board, or the test level that reports to the software board at the system level. There should be out-of-the-box solutions to migrate that and say that who are the three people on the triage board and if they have these admin privileges. Software review board and test review board would be another thing.

We have also had a problem with the integration with Bitbucket Pull Request data. It is an add-on to the tool, but it is not fully integrated. It is not easy from my perspective. Jira, Bitbucket, and Xray should be smoothly integrated. Xray is pretty good, but Bitbucket is standalone. So, when you pull out the data from a comma-separated value and want to move it into a new database, you have to reenter the data. You somehow lose that Pull Request capability. Pull Request through Bitbucket and the review of the code should be easier to manage. You could use a software package called Crucible to go ahead and mark how you did the review, who reviewed it, and who is the independent reviewer or subject matter expert, but that also should be easier to set up. If they want Jira to be the one-stop shop of the view of all of your deliverables, not just from a defect tracking perspective, but also from a requirement perspective, a code perspective, and a testing perspective, it needs to pull out more data and work better as an integration tool. 

I'm using Jira for the requirement repository. When I do requirements, it would be nice if I had the capability to say that for your requirement, I'm going to give you traceability to support a traceability report from Xray. I'm also going to give a requirement ID number in the ticket. You could use Jama and things like that, but it would be nice if Jira supported that.

We had on-prem and cloud deployments. We had to go to on-prem because of the security measures that were deployed. On-cloud didn't have the same capability. If you have one database on the cloud and the other one is on-prem, they don't talk to each other. It would be nice if you pulled it in and you could switch and say that I want to go on-prem because I got greater security risk.

When we go into the regulated space, I require a lot more integration and capability for tools. It is very hard to get tools to perform at that level because they're built for the general audience. In the regulated space, whether you're in medical devices, avionics, or any other regulated environment, tools have to be validated. I've worked with some companies in the past that had the capability to facilitate that validation. With one of the solutions, you could go ahead and buy a validated suite or a requirement package that will validate the tool for your use, but it is such a small market for Jira around the world that nobody really cares about that.

On their website, they show a bunch of tools that work with Jira, but it would be nice if they gave you examples and said that if you're a regulated medical device or regulated, here's a solution that could work for you. Here is Jira. Here is Crucible, and here is Xray, and here is what it'll do for you. They could also ask how do you do the requirement management? Do you use Jama that ties to Jira? It would be awesome if they had some use cases that showed people how to use Jira as the building block and how to add something on the front end for requirement management, and something on the backend for testing, such as Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management. People would see it and say that I want to do that.

It would also be nice if it could provide some lock-out capabilities based on your development and environment preferences. For example, you can specify that no one can close a defect until it has been tested, or until a particular task is complete, you can't go to the next phase. It would be cool if you could have something like this set up versus someone configuring it in the background.

They have got 10,000 licenses of Jira, and they have teams around the world deploying it across multiple geographies. All of that works fine.

I haven't used them because this company has its own tech support. So, I've been reaching out to them.

Most people who turn to Jira say that the return on investment is much better. 

Jira and its solution off the shelf are cheap. It is cheap for startups.

It depends on what you want to use Jira for, and what's the problem you're trying to solve. If you're going to do defect tracking and management of an artifact and you have got requirements, code, and tests, and they all got to summarize, you have to then go ahead and take Jira. You can then buy Crucible for the peer reviews and Xray for the test management and get them to work seamlessly with each other. 

I would rate Jira an eight out of ten. It is fairly cheap. For a nine or ten, it would be like DOORS and Jazz platform, but the problem with that is that it would become really expensive.

We use Jira for project management and tracking. 

I want the tool to integrate connectors. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

Jira is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has 300 users. 

Jira's deployment is easy. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten overall. 

We are using Jira for the internal project and issue management or tracking.

The most valuable feature of Jira is the integration with all the different Atlassian tools. They all integrate very easily.

Atlassian has multiple tools and it becomes difficult for a customer to process everything differently. Atlassian should combine them and form a single solution for DevOps by including the Jira Confluence, Bitbucket, Bamboo, and others. This would be much easier for customers by purchasing a package, rather than purchasing bits and pieces. With Azure DevOps and other companies, it becomes easier to go with one company having multiple areas that they can cater to, but in Atlassian, the problem is that you have to select different solutions to have a full package. For example, to have document management customers have to purchase Confluence and for Git repository management they have to purchase Bitbucket, et cetera. There is always another add-on that you need to attach to have a complete solution in Jira.

I have been using Jira for more than five years.

I have found Jira to be stable.

Jira is a scalable solution.

I did not have any issue with the use of technical support from Jira.

The initial setup was easy.

I would advise others that Jira is a good solution and I would recommend it.

I rate Jira a nine out of ten.

I am an Agile coach and consultant, and my clients use Jira to manage Agile teams, including tracking and gathering reports on performance at the team level as well as the team-of-teams level.

Since I work with different companies in my consulting work, there are different versions and implementations of Jira that I deal with. Most of the time I work with Jira on-premises, although I have worked a few times on the cloud edition.

In the near future, I most likely be using Jira Portfolio instead of the regular Jira because that will be my new responsibility.

I enjoy working with (and can recommend) Jira for a number of reasons. The best features are that it is friendly and provides good visibility. It's to the point and very effective.

When I start work with a company, one of the promises I give them is that they will get visibility, and very quickly at that. We are able to easily create boards and have the teams start work with story points. Then, we will make use of the Structure feature, which is another good feature that we get benefit from. 

In terms of the general Jira software, one element that is missing is budget management. Perhaps such functionality exists in add-ons, however. Once, several years ago, I tried to use one such add-on (the name of which I can't recall) but I dropped it because it was not effective enough. If we had this feature, I think we could provide the whole picture to top management.

I have been using Jira for about five years. 

It is stable. 

It's not scalable enough, in my opinion. To explain, I have a specific level of understanding of Jira so I am able to make specific customization to support activities at scale, but I don't feel like Jira is easily scalable out of the box. It's not always natural to scale up Jira without customization.

The technical support that I receive is not necessarily talking with any Jira support team, but rather it involves using the community's help from the internet.

On one hand, this avenue of assistance is quite good because I can often find answers there, but sometimes it's not enough. In these cases, Jira will ask to open a ticket and to vote on it so it gets priority. But it's frustrating because we might still not get answers, or we don't find anyone able to handle our issue for months or for years.

Overall, and for most problems, I think I have enough documentation so I can figure out what to do and how to do it. When compared with other tools, I think that Jira's documentation is clear.

I don't deal with licensing in my current consultant position.

For application lifecycle management, I can definitely recommend Jira and I would rate it an eight out of ten.