Jira Reviews

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.

We are using it for bug tracking and new feature development. We have its latest version.

Using Kanban boards has allowed us to become a flow-based organization versus a sprint-based organization.

Kanban boards are most valuable. 

The reporting capabilities, specifically customized reports, should be improved. The out-of-box reports don't meet our needs. We are big into customizing our reports, and being able to do ad hoc reporting would be good.

I have been using Jira for about three and a half years.

It has been very stable.

I believe it has been scaling. I don't really work with that group, and I am not sure. We've got at least a thousand people on it, and to my knowledge, it has been fine at least for our needs. It is being used extensively in our company. We don't have any plans to increase its usage. 

I have not had any interface with their technical support.

I have used Microsoft Team Foundation Server in the past. I switched to Jira because of the job change. Microsoft Team Foundation Server had a number of features that I don't see in Jira. It had good visual charting. 

I wasn't a part of that group.

There are some good and valuable tool plugins that make it a much better tool. I've got plugins that cover most of the features that were lacking. There are some specific plugins that are targeted for specific kinds of use cases.

I would rate Jira a seven out of ten. It all comes down to reporting. It should have better and more robust reporting.

We started using it in the eComm team for the website and all the digital projects. At the beginning was Jira for software development and the Confluence to move the communication away from our mailboxes. Now, we're also using it for marketing and campaign management. Confluence is now our single source of truth and, in general, we are using it in much more content-based projects.

In many ways: transparency, governance, new comers have a place where to find everything they need, email communications are kept to a miminum, project management is much easier. Also reporting to top management is improved, as there are a lot of nice features like roadmaps and dashboards that can be used for that.

The Kanban boards have been a very valuable feature because they can be either very simple for non-technical teams, but also highly detailed and data-driven for teams that are technical. We use them for both types of team.

Jira is also widely used, so whenever we start a collaboration with an agency/vendor we don't need to spend any time in deciding how are we going to communicate.

It is very flexible as well.

The next-generation software projects are very easy to use, but they lack a lot, and I found quite a few bugs. There are some really basic things that you still cannot do. For instance, setting a due date for a task that you create as mandatory is still not available. That's a bit of a blocker because people, especially those who are not technical, are not going to add anything if it's not mandatory. It's going to be difficult to teach them that they should do it anyway.

I'm trying to integrate these tools, and I'm trying to open them to different types of teams with different types of people. What I've found is that I read about a macro (App) or about a rule and think that it is what I need, but then find that things are not available for the cloud version. There are some features that are available only in the server version and not in the cloud version. I found a couple of add-ons that we were really interested in, and we couldn't use them because we're in the cloud version.

Sometimes when I tried to set up some macros/add-ons/apps, they didn't work well or were not flexible at all. For instance, you can add only one Excerpt macro to a specific page. And in the that area you cannot have a table, which means you cannot excerpt a table, only content. In general, if you follow the instructions they give you, it works, but when you try to adapt it to your actual needs, it often doesn't work anymore.

I've been using Jira for five years.

We started very small in just one team in the company, and then slowly we've started expanding it to other teams. Now, we are trying to roll it out to all the European digital teams.

We have had some big issues with customer support. Lately we have renewed our contract, and it has taken us two months to do so. There is no way to have a phone call with anybody. The chat is not there anymore. So, the only option is email, and these kinds of things are very difficult to communicate through email.

Two of us were contacting two or three different people from their costumer service till we found the one who was willing to go the extra mile and actually listen to what our issues were.

Try to be tidy from day one because it can get messy very easily. Jira is very flexible, and you can still move and migrate stuff around. However, the reality is that nobody is going to have the time later on to migrate and clean-up. I also recommend starting small because at the beginning it can be scary, especially for non-technical people. I'm thinking about the amount of notifications you'll get, for instance.

I would definitely start small and then slowly, while people are getting used to it, keep implementing it and adding features like roadmaps or dashboards. Try to have a plan or a scheme of how you want it to look before you actually start.

It's a great product and is widely used, so I would rate it at 8 on a scale from 1 to 10.

We use the solution primarily for project management. We organize our work by projects with epics, et cetera. Below that, I believe we are using a Zephyr plugin for QA. We don't use it for product planning.

I would say it's a necessary evil to use a product such as Jira. All of these solutions are a necessary evil. They all have their pros and cons.

For what the solution does, it's fine.

The solution offers a lot of plugins.

The solution is very configurable.

There's a bit of a learning curve, which I'm not a huge fan of. It's not exactly user-friendly per se.

I would prefer it if the solution was more intuitive.

There are just so many options, that it's pretty overwhelming as a product. There's too much to focus on.

We do find that we need plugins and have created integrations with more robust analytic solutions than Jira provides.

Personally, I'd like it if there was more flexibility in how you could manage the backlog at a project level.

I've been using Jira for about six months. It hasn't even been a year yet. The solution is still very new to me and I am still learning.

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

You can easily scale this solution. If you need to grow it out to meet your company's needs, you can do so. That's not a problem.

We have about 300 users on the solution right now. They include developers, administrators, senior leadership, analysts, designers, and project managers.

I haven't used technical support at all. I can't speak to their reliability or level of knowledge.

Although I wasn't hired at the outset of the company, it's my understanding that they've always used Jira as a solution.

I wasn't involved in the initial implementation of the solution. I just started working with the company six months ago. Honestly, I'm still learning the solution.

I don't have an opinion on the pricing or licensing. It's not really a main concern of mine. I don't have access to any information about what the company pays.

We're just customers. My company doesn't have a professional relationship with Jira.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I'm not sure of the last time we updated the solution. I've only been at the company for six months.

I'd advise other companies to dedicate two full-time people to learn the solution and train other team members. It's a big learning curve for users. It takes time to get into it. Having dedicated trainers would help onboard people.

Overall, I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. If it was more intuitive, and there was less of a learning curve for new users, I'd rate it much higher.

The configurable workflows and boards make it easy for us to execute and oversee our own unique process. The portfolio feature allows you to conceptualize your roadmap and experiment with various scenarios before committing to execute. Once you learn how to configure the system, it is extremely powerful.

JIRA has created visibility for our IT organization that did not previously exist.

There are some minor quirks, such as zero-point stories not appearing in the portfolio scope. We often poke stories at zero points because we have a very small group that needs outside help from time-to-time. We need to track these stories without impacting team velocity, so we poke them at zero.

These stories will not appear in the scope/schedule in the portfolio because the system interprets zero points as zero scope, even though the issues are open, assigned to the release and assigned to a Sprint. It would be nice to be able to see them in the schedule.

We have been using this product for three years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would give technical support a rating of 5/10. I have only asked two questions in the support forums. One was answered very quickly and the other was never answered.

I previously used CA Agile (a.k.a. ‘Rally’). My company decided to switch to JIRA because we were already using it for bug tracking. Once the Agile/Portfolio features were released, we decided to use JIRA for all IT project planning and tracking.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. One thing I personally don’t like is how the system, by default, assumes that all projects will have a different workflow and screen configuration. This adds complexity in my opinion. It should assume that there is a default workflow and configuration across projects and then allow you to copy and customize the defaults.

It is very cheap if you forego the local instance and stick to the cloud.

We evaluated Microsoft TFS and Targetprocess. Neither had a Portfolio planning feature, which is why we decided to stick with JIRA.

Establish a basic project management methodology and workflow first, with clear roles and responsibilities, and then use this product to execute. It is only as effective as you are disciplined in your sprint planning and execution.

I use the tool to review code quality and communicate with the QA team. I also use the product to raise tickets with my senior management for issues I cannot resolve.

The user interface is simple. It performs well. It is easy to use. Anyone can use the product.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using the solution for one year and two months.

I haven’t had any issues with the stability of the tool. I rate the stability eight out of ten.

The initial setup is simple. We have completely migrated to the AWS cloud.

I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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.