We performed a comparison between Jama Connect and Jira based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Provides suitable tools for managing regulatory requirements."
"Jama Connect is a good tool for the entire software development cycle."
"I like Jama Connect because it's easy to use and understand. The widgets are great, and linking is straightforward. The solution is not complex compared to its competitors."
"You can get full traceability with any other system. It also includes a test module, and you build the traceability matrix incrementally throughout the development process."
"Technical support answers fairly quickly compared to others like IBM or Atlassian. They also offer quite a good knowledge base for advanced cases and how to plan it, etc. via videos that they provide. They are quite useful."
"It is good at requirements management and test management."
"The most valuable feature is the user-friendly interface."
"Scaling the product wouldn't be difficult."
"I like that all of the team members on an agile team can use it. No one is in a separate application."
"Everything is tracked in one place."
"Some of the features that are most important to me of JIRA Agile are the sprint planning, being able to write user stories and being able to use task management."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the source linking on the commit level to git."
"There are a lot of different plugins for Jira. Unfortunately, we did not test so many and the big pain point for us is the rigorous handling and the roadmap of Jira. We have a portfolio and structure plugin and we have our story map plugin in Jira"
"It's easy to use, and it also offers excellent notifications."
"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."
"Test management can be improved. It's not so scalable. The user interface needs to split things into small projects."
"I have inquired about pricing for this solution but have not yet heard anything, so their response time in this regard is something that should be improved."
"I believe one of the weak points is the reporting side. You must export inter-readable reports from Jama if you do not use the system as a repository for your design history file. Jama is great if you keep it in Jama, but reporting out requires some customization to get it right."
"t is rather slow, so the speed of the process and consuming information should be improved. It doesn't have a nice way of viewing information. We would like to see better interfaces for consuming information."
"I think there's room for improvement, especially with the review process. Reviews should be integrated with requirement evaluation instead of being separate from it. The review should not run parallel to the requirement."
"There are some security concerns with Jama Connect, including two-factor enablement."
"The user interface could be modernized and the product lacks project management functionalities."
"The initial setup could be better, it's complicated."
"I do know the initial setup was pretty complicated. The user interface could be better organized and easier. "
"Its UI can be improved a little bit. I know this a business tool and not a commercial tool, but it could be a little bit more interactive like the HP ALM/Quality Center, which provides you the results of graphs and gives you a lot of visual representations. I feel Jira lacks a little bit in this aspect."
"Once a story is closed, all the records, versions, and documentation associated with it are gone. We lose the traceability of what was done."
"The initial setup was a bit problematic in terms of getting access to Jira. That goes for a few users, including me."
"It would be very practical if you can more freely reach the information that is already inside the system. Currently, we have to buy add-ons for it. There is a lot of information in the Jira system that you can handle only through add-ons. You cannot reach such information on your own. If you want to use this information, which is already in the system, you have to buy some add-on to use. For example, information about how much time an assignee is spending on a ticket is there in the system, but you cannot access it without an add-on. JQL is a very good way to reach the data inside Jira. If we can reach more objects, even through JQL, it would be great."
"If you're not a technical person, it might not be very user-friendly."
"Nowadays, many organizations are moving toward the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) framework, and this is something that Jira should be able to accommodate."
"The Classic UI is a little bit messy. UX experience is also a little bit messy and is not according to the expectation of a tech user."
Jama Connect is ranked 13th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 9 reviews while Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 259 reviews. Jama Connect is rated 7.4, while Jira is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Jama Connect writes "Agile, well structured, and has a great review module, which makes the design reviews smooth". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jira writes "A great centralized tool that has a good agile framework and is useful for day-to-day planning, task management, and work log efficacy". Jama Connect is most compared with IBM Rational DOORS, Polarion Requirements, IBM Rational DOORS Next Generation, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Polarion ALM, whereas Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Codebeamer. See our Jama Connect vs. Jira report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors and best Application Requirements Management vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.