Jira is a Saviour
Jira Software is a project management tool that is widely used by various teams in our organization to manage their projects and tasks. …
Starting at $81.85 per month 10 users
View PricingOverview
What is Jira Software?
Jira Software is a project management tool from Atlassian, featuring an interactive timeline for mapping work items, dependencies, and releases, Scrum boards for agile teams, and out-of-the-box reports and dashboards.
Recent Reviews
Awards
Products that are considered exceptional by their customers based on a variety of criteria win TrustRadius awards. Learn more about the types of TrustRadius awards to make the best purchase decision. More about TrustRadius Awards
Reviewer Pros & Cons
Pricing
Standard
$8.15
Cloud
per month per user (minimum 10)
Premium
$16
Cloud
per month per user (minimum 10)
Data Center
$44,000
On Premise
per year 500 users
Entry-level set up fee?
- No setup fee
For the latest information on pricing, visithttps://www.atlassian.com/software/jira…
Offerings
- Free Trial
- Free/Freemium Version
- Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Starting price (does not include set up fee)
- $81.85 per month 10 users
Product Demos
JIRA Project Management Tutorial for Beginners (2022)
YouTube
The full overview: Roadmaps in Jira Software
YouTube
Product Details
- About
- Integrations
- Competitors
- Tech Details
- FAQs
What is Jira Software?
Jira Software is a project management tool software used by agile teams and supports any agile methodology, be it scrum, kanban, or a team's own unique flavor. From agile boards to reports, users can plan, track, and manage agile software development projects. And since not every team works the same way, Jira Software allows teams to customize workflows, permissions, and schemes to match the unique needs of each team.
Jira templates also support use cases in enterprise marketing management, and projects to support operations, design HR, and enterprise marketing management.
With Jira Software, teams are able to:
- Track versions, features, and progress at a glance
- Re-prioritize user stories and bugs
- Estimate stories, adjust sprint scope, check velocity, and re-prioritize issues
- Estimate, track and report on story points; become more accurate
- Report on agile metrics to provide real-time, actionable data on team efficiency, quality, and overall performance
- Integrate with all the tools their dev team is already using, from the rest of the Atlassian suite (Bitbucket, Bamboo, Fisheye, and Crucible) to other popular developer tools on-premise or cloud (e.g., GitHub and Jenkins).
- Provide greater flexibility to curate which teams have access to which information with sprint and project-level permissions
- Flexibly tailor Jira tasks and their workflows to a specific team's use case
- Extend Jira with over 1,800 apps from the Atlassian Marketplace to fit any capability not provided by default
Jira Software Videos
Jira in a Nutshell Demo Video
Jira Software is a software development project management tool of sorts, that tracks progress, offers up project reports, and gives a great roadmap view to understand workloads and deadlines better. In this video, the TrustRadius team goes over Jira Software pricing, top feat...
Show More Jira Software Integrations
Jira Software Competitors
Jira Software Technical Details
| Deployment Types | On-premise, Software as a Service (SaaS), Cloud, or Web-Based |
|---|---|
| Operating Systems | Windows, Mac |
| Mobile Application | Apple iOS, Android |
Frequently Asked Questions
Jira Software is a project management tool from Atlassian, featuring an interactive timeline for mapping work items, dependencies, and releases, Scrum boards for agile teams, and out-of-the-box reports and dashboards.
Jira Software starts at $81.85.
Reviewers rate Support Rating highest, with a score of 8.8.
The most common users of Jira Software are from Enterprises (1,001+ employees).
Comparisons
Compare with
Reviews and Ratings
(3244)
Community Insights
TrustRadius Insights are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, 3rd-party data sources. Have feedback on this content? Let us know!
- Pros
- Cons
Easy-to-use tool with minimal learning curve: Users have found JIRA to be an intuitive and user-friendly tool that requires minimal effort to learn. Several reviewers mentioned that they were able to navigate through the platform easily and quickly adapt to its features.
Seamless collaboration through integration with other tools: Many users appreciated JIRA's ability to integrate with various plugins and add-ons, enabling seamless collaboration across different teams and departments. This integration allowed for enhanced productivity by bringing together different tools into one centralized platform.
Flexibility of customization: The flexibility of JIRA in terms of customization was highly regarded by users. They mentioned being able to customize bugs, tasks, and stories based on the specific requirements of their projects. This flexibility helped them tailor JIRA to their unique project management needs.
Confusing and overwhelming user interface: Many users have expressed frustration with the confusing and overwhelming user interface of JIRA. They find it difficult to efficiently complete tasks due to a lack of intuitive navigation and cluttered design.
Complexity and difficulty in customization: A significant number of reviewers find JIRA's customization options to be complex and challenging. It often requires dedicated training to effectively navigate and utilize the software's customization features.
Limitations in reports, charts, and attachments: Users have reported challenges in sharing information within JIRA due to limitations in reports, charts, and attachments. These limitations hinder effective collaboration, communication, and data visualization.
Attribute Ratings
Reviews
(1-5 of 5)Companies can't remove reviews or game the system. Here's why
October 24, 2017
JIRA is the only support tool for Atlassian Confluence users
JIRA was used to document differences between a desired specification and a delivered prototype. The organization being small, it was used by everyone. It was intended to be a single tool to characterize issue reports, compile bugs, author work orders & track progress for a web-based application tracking various aspects of building management & efficiencies.
- Integrates well with Atlassian's other products including Confluence wiki - this is essential since there are always reports, research & knowledge outside the scope of the bug reporting or support tool, and a general purpose wiki is absolutely necessary to compile this effectively.
- Produces reports about a particular release's deficiencies, when those can be characterized well enough by reporting users - essentially serving as a link between support people & developers, which is central to support-driven development, and necessary for DevOps integration between developers and sysops (where those are different people, which in a successful org, they would be)..
- Exports data well enough to standard output formats & notification systems.
- JIRA is part of a silo with Atlassian's other tools, like Confluence wiki. Just as Microsoft tools integrate tightly with its Sharepoint knowledge base (it's not a "wiki" in my opinion), Atlassian's form a stack that essentially requires one to use Confluence. Meanwhile if you are using the far more common & supported MediaWiki, you will find that for various reasons it is wiser to use Phabricator, the Facebook/WikiMediaFoundation bug reporting tool (competitor to JIRA) since the largest users of PHP-based mediawiki are also using that, and integrate them more over time. If JIRA wishes to compete for users who are relying on SharePoint & MediaWiki, who very much outnumber Confluence users, it will have to support those knowledge management / CMS / wiki systems as peers, and will have to restrict the degree to which it favors Confluence else it will be too great a business risk to rely on JIRA when using a non-Atlassian CMS or wiki.
- JIRA does not provide much direct support for support-driven development (SDD); that is, when one is specifying a new product entirely, with desired (not real yet) fictional features, JIRA would have some trouble characterizing this correctly. Yet for SDD it's critical to be able to represent a specification of desired behavior even when there is no running code that attempts to implement it, else there will always be a gap between a specifying tool and a support tool. JIRA developers would have to make a conscious decision to support "revision 0" of software; that is, its specification without any working artifact, and with only proposed URIs or command verbs, keeping these mutable so that potential support problems were found in the specification stage, and there was NO gap between tools used for revision 0 versus revision 0.1 to 0.9 to 1.0, only a difference in audience.
- Mobile & responsive support is weak - when a problem is reported it should be relatively easy to filter who gets which reports, and those should be sent through confidential means like XMPP or Signal, rather than relying on proprietary services such as social media (major security problem).
- JIRA was not the appropriate software for us as we required a support-driven development style of tool that could be used to specify or propose MVP (minimum viable product) before actually specifying in depth. We were also using MediaWiki as our CMS so ultimately shifted to Phabricator, for which we could find vast support for use with MediaWiki & PHP-based apps like WordPress (our delivery platform). However, JIRA did discipline the collection of feedback about an early prototype, sufficient to convince us to change our direction, so was useful there.
- Any support tool is only as useful as the next release that it helps to specify. A moderate effort applied in JIRA was enough to identify the most useful development goals for the next release, and it was probably helpful to have a very disciplined framework to characterize the problems. We found however we could use that structure without the restrictions applied by JIRA itself, i.e. adopt its terms for things where appropriate, within the more flexible Semantic Bundle extension framework of MediaWiki, which is far more capable of "web 3.0" sorts of integration.
- It was useful to identify that stacks or silos were essentially so interdependent vertically that we did not want to depart from what other PHP-based open source platforms were using, while we were delivering within that world. We avoided making any investment in SharePoint as a result, and focused clearly on Phabricator, and that was beneficial.
Phabricator is the only comparable tool I have used recently. It was designed to integrate with PHP-based projects specifically (Facebook, MediaWiki, WordPress) which are today the most diverse (WordPress) & highest volume (Facebook) & flexible (MediaWiki) online services in the world. It was relatively unpolished compared to JIRA when we selected JIRA. This was influenced by recommendation of another development manager who was already using it.
4
CEO, CTO, senior user interface developer, project manager. Essentially everyone involved in quality control & user experience & support for a pre-released product for real estate / building data management.
1
Anyone familiar with Atlassian Confluence wiki & its underlying toolset can support JIRA. These tools should be used together though there are lesser functional CMS available that support JIRA.
- Extend Atlassian Confluence wiki to provide support services to end users with expert backup & escalation, including users of Confluence implementations themselves or potentially other CMS.
- Characterize prototypes' issues & flaws for purposes of redesign, negotiation or MVP definition.
- Provide a common vocabulary to discuss support problems.
- Identify a weak business case for an initial product that led to discovering a more appropriate MVP.
- Train developers & executives who would have to double as support staff in support priorities & problems.
- Adapt a vocabulary of support & issue management for more flexible use within semantic web based CMS.
- Report analyses of already-delivered products to clients & customers already using Confluence or other Atlassian tools, in the form most integrated with it.
- Recommend it to entities with no CMS to determine if they need minimal, open or proprietary CMS capabilities, and to determine if they can discipline their proposed specification in JIRA form.
- Hopefully, when it has better support for proposed (not released) product problems, use as initial specification tool, so that support can use exactly the same tool used to specify a release.
Yes
We were using MediaWiki for reporting bugs & managing specifications. At a certain point its lack of specific discipline for issue reporting become a seeming problem so we compiled our issue reports in JIRA in an independent process. This was not due to any deficiency in our CMS but rather a lack of experience in characterizing releases, issues & bugs in that free form. JIRA's discipline was helpful though we eventually returned to using a combination of MediaWiki and a more PHP-focused tool, Phabricator, for this need.
- Product Reputation
- Third-party Reviews
A development manager was familiar with JIRA and Phabricator was very new and had not been closely integrated with MediaWiki. We were considering Confluence or another CMS & if JIRA had provided any extreme advantage we might have considered doing projects in it, leaving MediaWiki in its general research role, which it had for a decade prior to this project.
A development and issue support tool like JIRA must be extremely closely integrated with a CMS. There is no point explaining things inside JIRA, they absolutely must be linked to CMS pages. Not being able to use [[mediawiki link notation]] within JIRA was crippling to us.
JIRA's integration with Confluence is better, but we didn't realize it really has to be implemented as Confluence first, JIRA second, in order to get any integration advantage. To have to rewrite every scrap of text in every field in JIRA manually to refer to the linked pages that specify the desired behavior in the wiki, really isn't a practical approach at all.
JIRA's integration with Confluence is better, but we didn't realize it really has to be implemented as Confluence first, JIRA second, in order to get any integration advantage. To have to rewrite every scrap of text in every field in JIRA manually to refer to the linked pages that specify the desired behavior in the wiki, really isn't a practical approach at all.
- Implemented in-house
No
July 08, 2015
Web development team relying on JIRA
In our company JIRA is used by our Web Development teams. We have teams in multiple locations and need a good project management tool. As an in-house web team, we develop various B2B websites and internally used web based tools. Keeping track of every part of the team is essential. This can be a challenge when working in a global company with teams in different time zones. With JIRA, we are able to create and assign tasks to any team member and be sure that it will be taken care of. Implementing JIRA in our work routine also helped us bring a good and efficient workflow to any type of task.
- Workflows. Being able to define workflows for any type of a task, helps with keeping that task on track. Additionally, you can trigger various actions when a task hits a step in a workflow, like automatically re-assigning a task to a specific team member.
- Dashboards. You can organize your JIRA dashboard any way you want and you can have as many dashboards as needed. This helps when preparing for team meetings and generating reports.
- Customization. Being able to customize JIRA is great. It allowed us to adjust the use of the software to our needs and not the other way around.
- JIRA is missing an iOS app. Even though there is a mobile version of the site, it is not easy to work in. As a manager, I receive a lot of JIRA related emails. Being able to answer questions or make changes on the go would be very helpful.
- You are able to embed a form outside of JIRA that would upon submitting, create a new JIRA task. We use it for submitting tickets. Once a ticket has been closed, there is no automatic way of informing the requester about the resolution.
- Better tracking of tasks/issues
- More accurate prediction of project completion dates
- Better task distributing
- Better task categorization
What appealed to us with JIRA at first sight is pricing per user. It may sound funny, but for us this was better than pricing per number of projects. Most of our projects are ongoing. Once an initial development is done, we continue maintaining the software and keep track of tasks. So we have a steady number of people but are not sure about the number of projects we might have.
10
- Implemented in-house
No
Change management was minimal
- Defining workflows
- Understanding various project types
April 14, 2015
Lead Quality Assurance
Then entire company is using this JIRA and Confluence. Primary reason for switching to JIRA is for Assigning and Monitoring Task assignments and the hours worked using Agile Methodology.
- I like I can easily move a ticket from one project to another.
- I like that I can convert a task to a sub-task and reverse.
- I like that I can link Stories/Tasks . to an Epic.
- I like that I can create a filter and share with team members
- I like that I create a dashboard and share with team members
- I like the comment feature with notification and the tracking of History and transitions for each ticket
- I like that every ticket is a hyperlink, awesome.
- When a subtask is assigned, display parent task/subtask on Work board, both should be clickable.
- Add multiple time logged buckets. For example, one for developers, one for test analyst, one for Business Analyst. Make time logged buckets user defined. This should not have to be an additional purchase, pretty typical in our world today.
- Increased Employee efficiency
- Basecamp,Application Lifetime Management,Spirateam
ALM too expensive for company our size. Spirateam does not handle task assignment as well as Jira.
- Implemented in-house
April 08, 2015
Atlassian JIRA has significantly improved our work intake and request tracking processes
Our organization uses JIRA for work intake and tracking across multiple departments. It was initially implemented by our Software Development department to manage day-to-day support requests and bug fixes. However, it was so successful that nearly every other department has set up their own project(s) and developed new processes for managing their work intake, centered around JIRA. When used in conjunction with JIRA Agile (it used to be called GreenHopper), JIRA is a fantastic tool for identifying bottlenecks in the process. We use it for work intake, prioritization, tracking, and ultimately as a record of work completion.
- Excellent for use as a repository for work requests
- Allows easy prioritization of work requests
- Can be highly customized to match your processes
- The administrator tools can be difficult to understand - there is a pretty steep learning curve if you want to start customizing
- I wish you could attach a screenshot during issue creation - I don't know why it's available once the issue is created, but not as part of creation
- Dramatically improved visibility into work queues across multiple departments
- Streamlined work hand off processes - e.g. software development can hand off code to quality assurance, who uses JIRA to track bugs, and can watch the progress of those bugs right in the tool
- I use both a hosted instance (for internal work tracking) and the cloud service (for work tracking with outside vendors) and both are fantastic
- Asana,Basecamp,Zendesk
JIRA is simply the most robust and customizable product I've worked with. If you're a casual user, the interface is pretty simple and straight forward. If you're an administrator, there is definitely a learning curve, but there's also ample documentation available. In addition, Atlassian's forum has many active, highly knowledgable users, and I've never failed to have a question answered. It may take time to learn all the ins and outs around the configuration options, but once you do, JIRA becomes a very powerful tool.
Software Development, Quality Assurance, Business Analysis, Project Management, Customer Support, Client Consultants, and Sales Support departments all use JIRA on a regular basis. We also set up a JIRA project to manage Performance Reviews, so HR can see who has completed their reviews and who hasn't. Additional departments use JIRA on an ad-hoc basis.
For the most part, JIRA support consists of administrator functions related to configuration. This includes creating projects, building workflows, setting up screens (with specific fields on each screen), etc. This requires some analytic skills, but little to no technical skills. However, if you have a locally hosted JIRA instance (as we do), you'll also need someone with server knowledge to set the program up, and to assist in regular upgrades.
- Managing day-to-day software development support requests
- Tracking work with outside vendors
- Managing configuration or support requests from sales staff
- We use JIRA to track annual and mid-year performance reviews - every employee is a "ticket" and every ticket is assigned to the appropriate manager, who has to track their progress towards writing a review, reviewing it with the employee, and delivering a signed and finalized review to HR
- Many departments use JIRA to track internal work, so that everyone on their team knows the current status of any particular issue
- We already use JIRA to track almost all of our work. I imagine that if additional departments are created, or new, novel projects are begun, JIRA will continue to be the go-to repository for work tracking
- Implemented in-house
Change management was a big part of the implementation and was well-handled
We're using JIRA across the organization to build digital products in Agile with onshore and offshore development teams.
- Planning board allows good visibility into sprints as well as backlog, making it easy to organize and prioritize
- Integration with Confluence allows easy cross-referencing between Product Requirements and User Stories
- Integration with HipChat allows for asynchronous communications across time zones.
- Information Architecture between JIRA and Confluence is abysmal, can be difficult to navigate between the two
- OnDemand instance has limited add-ons.
- HipChat would greatly benefit from a shortcut that links issue numbers directly to tickets
- There is a steep learning curve with JIRA, both for admin set up and users
- JIRA OnDemand doesn't scale proportionally, adding one new user over a certain number doubles the monthly cost.
- JIRA has allowed us to move quickly to achieve our goals
Personally I would prefer a simpler tool, the decision to use JIRA had been made prior to my joining the team.
- Implemented in-house