We performed a comparison between Jira and PractiTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Atlassian, Nutanix and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites."Transparency of development projects, as well as approval processes for some business projects, has improved massively."
"The ability to change and rewrite tasks is valuable. You can add a lot of columns, change the owners and the change the components."
"Offers great multiple reporting charts."
"Work management software that has the flexibility to be configured for any company. It's stable, scalable, and offers responsive support."
"Kanban board: The board is easy to use and visually impressive to non-IT users, who found it easy to relate to."
"Jira is designed for issue tracking, making the process much easier than traditional methods like paper-based tracking. It is number one for agile management."
"The burndown chart is also helpful when it comes to reporting and allows us to know where we are going, especially during development."
"The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"An area for improvement in Jira is that it's not designed for test management. To use it for test management, you need an add-on or several add-ons, e.g. Xray or Zephyr."
"The automation feature needs to be more user-friendly."
"I find the dashboard to be Jira's most problematic feature."
"My main concern is the administration of projects, especially user groups, and this requires root access rights but there is no concept of layered admin rights."
"From a very software-centric or a lead developer standpoint, there should be the ability to work at multiple levels. You have epic stories and use cases or epic stories and tasks. It would be nice to be able to have multiple levels of stories and multiple levels of epics work with it. It's lacking a little bit there, and this is the big thing for me because it makes it difficult to do a real sprint when you're limited to one story per epic. It's really hard to isolate tasks at multiple levels to match the type of use cases you normally do. That's the biggest difficulty. Other than that, they've been improving year to year, and every version seems to have a level of improvement."
"It can have a more high-level view of portfolios. It has quite detailed views, but I would like a high-level view of portfolios. We want to integrate Jira with Microsoft Active Directory, and I don't know how easy or hard it is going to be. I don't know if Jira supports this. We are starting that integration in the last quarter of this year. I hope to find all the required tools for this integration."
"There needs to be easier integration with third-parties — personally, this is the biggest issue for me."
"If Jira would be interested in offering a SharePoint version, it would be beneficial."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
Earn 20 points
Jira is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 254 reviews while PractiTest is ranked 20th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Jira is rated 8.0, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". Jira is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, IBM Rational DOORS, OpenText ALM Octane, Rally Software and Polarion ALM, whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Microsoft Azure DevOps.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.