Jira Reviews

My organization primarily uses Jira for project execution like managing the sprints, sprint planning, task creation and execution of the project on a sprint basis.

They also use Jira for other insights into how our team is performing and the velocity of the team. They look at the dashboard and report to see how are we delivering minimum viable products (MVPs) on time.

Jira offers tools for managing projects using Agile methodology. I think it is good to encourage the development team to use Jira, so that the organization benefits from the proper execution of projects on time. It helps our organization to execute in a better way.

I like the comment section. When you create a Jira task and work on it, sometimes product owners need to know the most recent status. I can go to the comments and then provide my updates stating how far I am. They can also refer to it and they can comment on it. It's for collaborating with other team members.

I also like using the filters in Jira. I can label all of the Jira tasks based on different business areas or whatever category I want. I can filter something that is related to what I've been working on. For example, if I am interested in APIs, I can filter all the Jira tasks with the API label and get all the API-related tasks, check the progress and where they stand. 

I can also get access to documentation such as the tester data and the other things that other developers have provided.

Jira could provide more insight into sprints such as how did we perform in the last sprint compared to other sprints. It would be helpful to have metrics and a dashboard feature for others to see. 

I have used Jira for the past three to four years.

In all the time I have used Jira, I have not had any stability issues. 

Jira is used by many of our teams and I have no concerns around scalability. 

There are around 1,000 users in my company who use it.

Jira offers Agile project methodology management and can be used for defect tracking and bug tracking. I would strongly recommend any organization wanting to use Jira, to work with the Jira team to understand what each product offers and how suitable it is for their organization. 

The Jira team could be consulted to understand the project, your department's requirements, and provide a proper way of managing the tool and advising what are the kind of roles you'll need.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of Jira is for tracking corporates and for new test cases where we need to execute monthly releases. We use it for test management purposes, whether for tracking or test use cases in their different cycles. We log everything on Jira and are very dependent on it. We are customers of Jira and I'm senior quality assurance person.

We've seen a benefit from the tracking of the release sizes and their status, it's very clear and simple, and the UI for Jira is easy to understand. 

Jira has a good dashboard. If I'm running an automated test script on different levels, say API automated or UI automated, and want to track automation status in the dashboard, I can get the overall status. I know how many cases are automated with the API or the UI and how many cannot be automated. It's a good feature. 

Jira could be more user friendly. When I started using it, I faced difficulties in different project selections and there were issues with bugs. It was not straightforward. I feel it could offer an improved user experience. I have a small issue that whenever I log out there's a bug and for a fraction of a second, I'll get a notification that then disappears before I can do anything about it. 

I've been using Jira for quite some time. 

From a performance perspective, I have faced many issues, some bugs and glitches, and there has been some down time. In general, it's a stable solution. 

The solution is scalable; we have BA, QA and Dev Ops people all using Jira. Everyone has  access, but certain users have access to certain areas. It's our test management tool so we use it a lot, everything is tracked on Jira and our reports come from there. 

We haven't used the technical support.

I used TFS before Jira. They are similar tools but I found TFS to be a more complicated solution.

The deployment took a few hours, some aspects were more complicated than others. 

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect. 

I rate Jira seven out of 10. 

I am working on a project which involves moving Jira onto the Azure boards. We use Azure DevOps for our repository and pipelines and we are looking to move on to Azure boards from JIRA for our ticketing or change request management.

Jira has helped our company because the board layouts are easier to use and has helped us see what is happening in regards to stories and bugs.

The layout, workflow, automation, and metrics are helpful in Jira.

The flexibility of defining your columns that can possibly contain multiple statuses is important. When you have teams that are different levels of granularity, the C levels, only care that it is in progress, but the leads want to know that it is in QA or development. You can accomplish these types of things with JIRA.

The biggest complaint industry-wide about JIRA is they need to purchase additional extensions, such as reporting automation. If they could provide some additional extensions from the initial purchase it would be a huge benefit.

When using the service desk and the developer, the transition could be better between the two. For example, we asked the support desk to send a ticket over to the development and it was a little bit cumbersome. We had to recreate another ticket for development, then we had two tickets, one service desk, and one development. It would be beneficial if the process was more smooth between those two packages.

I have been using Jira for approximately eight years.

The stability of the cloud version of JIRA is very good. However, we did have some issues with the on-premise version but the issue could have been because our servers were overloaded.

The scalability has been very good.

We have approximately 40 people using this solution in my organization, which is mostly everyone. It is used by many departments, such as project offices, development, and coding QA. The only department that is not involved in the use of the solution is the company support. I had worked at a company previously that used the JIRA service desk for their support and it worked well.

I have previously used DevOps and Rally.

JIRA installation is complicated. It is similar to a lot of other systems, the more flexible they tend to be more complicated they become.

We do the maintenance of the solution which is adding users and moving them around. The solution is very hands-off, it does not require a lot of maintenance.

We currently are evaluating other options and are doing a study to see if we are going to continue using JIRA or move to something else.

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution to contact an expert. 

This solution is a top-of-the-line CRM, I have used the others solutions, and it has the most flexibility and the best visibility.

I rate Jira a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for project management. 

What I like about this product is how you can manage from the project to the deployment, even using Bamboo or using Bitbucket. 

Being able to automatize the deployment of the solution has been great. 

We're not only managing documentation on the project task, but we're also handling the technical assets that are under the project. 

What I don't like is that perhaps there are not so many different apps that can add value over the management side of the product. They're not able to develop over Jira, even for normal technical activity signing. For managing the project better or for task documentation or even managing tickets or service needs in another way, there needs to be better customization or better apps.

I'm really obsessed with the idea of reducing the number of activities to have a general retail workplace. However, if we need to expand the use of the Atlassian suite to all the teams, all the people, we need something that can be, easier to use and has the ability to offer more guidance to those users that usually don't work with these type of tools. For example, ServiceNow doesn't fit all the needs in the company, however, it can be configured. You can develop so many different functions over it. I don't want to increase the payments and the number of licenses that I have to buy from ServiceNow. I would prefer to have my own developed team and try to define everything on our side - including the functionalities that I would like to build for those proposed functionalities.

I've used the solution in a structured way for about 18 months now. 

We have looked at and worked with several content-managed solutions in the last year. We're trying to build our retail workplace using ServiceNow, and, at the same time, increasing the use of the Atlassian suite. ServiceNow, we use for post activities such as service ticketing, service managing, and so on. 

The introduction of agile has moved us onto the Atlassian suite, which has been really very, very useful. At the same time, we have a partial solution that has been built over Salesforce, using the Salesforce development environment. 

Fortunately, we have so many different solutions for file management. We have FileNet, we have OneDrive. We have SAP. In terms of file management, we have so many different solutions, even Dropbox.

We are using the Jira service center and we are using Trello and Confluence as well.

The deployment is pretty straightforward. It's not overly difficult. We are able to automatize a lot of it. 

We're an Atlassian partner. 

In terms of project management, Trello is not enough of a solution to manage complex projects and maybe some new functions can be developed. I'm not saying that Jira has to develop that, or that Atlassian has to develop that. Perhaps there is something that we can do to create a referring community to develop those new use cases and more simple use cases, and, at the same time, use them for more general purposes in the company. Atlassian fits in the technical side, in the IT side really well. It just needs to move to become friendly in a retail workspace environment, outside of its traditionally technical background.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We are using the recent version.

We use it for story and sprint planning, as well as for reporting. 

The solution benefits our organization with its agility, planning and visibility in respect of large teams spanning different geo locations.

The tool is well known and popular to use. 

The sprint planning is pretty good, as are the reporting piece, retrospective reporting and the planning board. 

It is a great tool from the planning perspective, such as that of capacity and sprint planning. 

As the solution is highly configurable, it has very poor governance. There is nothing which comes out of Jira to go into the product. It is free for all and anyone can create with it. This means that the responsibility lies with the user community to create some form of governance. 

Moreover, the solution is geared to small teams. It lacks scalability. 

The tool is not good at the enterprise level. This means that, depending on how the person installed the software, the issue of performance may increase commensurate with the number of projects. While plugin for x-ray exists, it is not that mature in test management. Although it's a good tool for many of the smaller clients, once a person goes deeper into it, it's not there, even though it will get the work done. 

It is a less desirable solution in controlled environments, such as science, banking and finance, in which there is a need for certain compliance supports.

The solution is not that great for audit histories. It's a great tool when much integration is involved. With cold products, things can always be achieved through other means. 

When the teams collaborate, they need multiple metrics to be tracked. With this comes the issue of direct impacts, such as the appearance of one's UI and its usability aspects. The screens have changed greatly in appearance over the last ten years. This is an issue which every software dealt with in line with the growth of usage and complexity. 

I have been using Jira for nearly ten years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is good for small teams. It lacks scalability. It does not work well when it must be used across multiple domains and multiple teams which need to collaborate. 

The Atlassian strategy is that the solution be open to all to encourage collaboration. But, this raises the issue of how to control the data input and the tool and all that it comprises in respect of the reporting that is generated. This means that poor data quality in the geo projects will equate with poor reporting on it. 

As such, supplementation by the teams or organizations using it is required. They must come up with their own rules of governance about who can do what. 

The product is not being extensively used at the moment. It is a niche product. I have not seen usage behind it. It involves ID users for certain teams. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. This will depend on the feedback we receive. 

I have not made use of technical support. 

We did not switch to Jira. It is simply one of the products that we also use in addition to an in-house micro focus ALM. 

While I was not involved in the initial setup, my understanding is that it is simple. Atlassian puts out many different products and I cannot say for certain how I would have handled ones which are on-premises, compared to those which are cloud-based or server products. 

I am not in a position to comment on the licensing. 

We make use of the solution on Jira Cloud. 

While I cannot say with certainty, I would estimate the number of users in our organization at a thousand-plus. 

This figure contemplates different departments, such as that involving support. 

My advice is that someone in a large enterprise first give consideration to the issue of governance before implementing the solution. For a small team it is ready to use straight out of the box. One need just try and stay with the default workflows. There is no need to overengineer the product. 

The product is good, stable and very cost-effective for small teams. These are some of its advantages. 

I rate Jira as a seven out of ten. 

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.