We performed a comparison between JIRA Service Management and Kayako based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about ServiceNow, Atlassian, BMC and others in Help Desk Software."One of the main advantages of JIRA is that it can be customized for our solutions. I live in Iran and we translated some parts of it into Persian and customized it with extra features. We hid other features to customize it right to the point. We provide this solution for our customers."
"The platform is easy to use."
"The visibility features are great."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"JIRA SD also helps for much better feedback on the work being done. All colleagues can see what is happening."
"One of the best features is that I can share tickets with team members, at which point any team member is able to pick one up and work on it."
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"JIRA helps integrate Kanban Board features and for this reason what it does it does well."
"The most valuable feature of Kayako is its flexibility. We can do anything we want with it, which is nice."
"Include a split configuration in a layer part to allow cloud services to have almost full admin rights in SaaS."
"The queries are weak and lack advanced functionality. You can do rudimentary queries, but you can't aggregate. You can't filter for a lot of things that would be useful, so you need to use plugins to write writing advanced queries. I run into problems when working with different organizations because they always have restrictions on what kind of plugins they allow."
"The interface could always be updated and improved."
"The search function could be improved. We have to search a certain way. There is no generic search; it is more object-oriented search."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product does not have the capability to sort queued tickets by product. This would be useful in making workflows more efficient."
"The way it handles subtasks can be improved. We would really like the ability to have different types of subtasks. If we have a user story for a feature, we would like to have a subtask for documentation, a subtask for requirements, a subtask for development, and a subtask for testing. Right now, we just make four subtasks, but there is no way to specify their type, so we have to add a custom field to specify what type of work is this. It just means you've got to look at more data. For logging time or time tracking, we would like to have something using which we can define the work type we're doing. We would like to log whether we're working on a bug, a new development, scope change, or rework. We've got a user story for which we do the dev, and then we have to do more dev. It is the same story, but some of it could have been a scope change, and some of it could be a rework because we either screwed up the first time or missed something obvious. Currently, we have to have a custom field and track that separately. It would be nice to have some kind of work type for logging time."
"Currently lacks an asset management module that can affect deployment."
"Some of the reporting in Kayako could be improved. It only has two levels of classification and if there were additional levels added for reporting purposes it would be awesome for our environment."
Earn 20 points
JIRA Service Management is ranked 2nd in Help Desk Software with 73 reviews while Kayako is ranked 43rd in Help Desk Software. JIRA Service Management is rated 8.2, while Kayako is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of JIRA Service Management writes "Customizable, stable, and integrates well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kayako writes "Flexible, straightforward implementation, and helpful support". JIRA Service Management is most compared with ServiceNow, ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus, Freshdesk, BMC Helix ITSM and PagerDuty Operations Cloud, whereas Kayako is most compared with .
See our list of best Help Desk Software vendors.
We monitor all Help Desk Software 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.
