Linear has become the darling of software development teams. The speed, the keyboard shortcuts, the clean design: it's what developers wish Jira could be. But Linear's opinionated approach doesn't fit every team.
I started using Linear in early 2025 after years of Jira fatigue, and honestly? The performance difference is absurd. Everything feels instant. Opening issues, searching tickets, switching views: all faster than Jira by a noticeable margin. The GitHub integration actually works the way you'd expect instead of feeling bolted on.
But here's the thing: Linear is narrowly focused on software development. If your team builds software, that focus is perfect. If you're managing marketing campaigns or client projects alongside your code work, Linear's limitations become obvious fast.
Maybe you need more flexibility than Linear's opinionated structure provides. Or perhaps the pricing doesn't work for your team size. Could be you're locked into Atlassian's ecosystem and can't easily switch. Or your team isn't technical enough to appreciate Linear's developer-centric design.
Linear costs $8/user/month, which is reasonable but not free. Some teams prefer open-source alternatives or tools with more generous free tiers. Others need enterprise features like advanced permissions or audit logs that Linear's standard plan doesn't include.
Why Look Beyond Linear?
Linear does a few things exceptionally well, but that specialization creates gaps that push teams toward alternatives.
Too Developer-Focused for Mixed Teams
Linear assumes everyone on your team thinks like a software engineer. The keyboard shortcuts, the Git workflow integration, the technical terminology: all optimized for developers. Product managers, designers, and stakeholders often find it less intuitive than general-purpose project tools.
If your team includes non-technical people who need to track work, tools like Asana or ClickUp offer friendlier interfaces that don't require understanding Git branches or issue IDs.
Limited Customization Options
Linear is intentionally opinionated. You get their workflow structure, their view options, their way of organizing work. This creates consistency but limits flexibility. Can't customize fields as much as Jira, can't build elaborate dashboards like ClickUp, can't create custom databases like Notion.
Some teams love the constraints because it means less configuration overhead. Others find it restrictive, especially when trying to adapt Linear to existing processes instead of adapting processes to Linear.
Weak Reporting and Analytics
Linear's insights are basic: cycle time, completion rates, issue counts. Jira offers way more detailed reporting with custom filters and charts. If you need to generate executive reports or track complex metrics, Linear's analytics feel underwhelming.
The API exists if you want to build custom dashboards, but that requires engineering time. Teams wanting ready-made reporting usually look elsewhere.
No Time Tracking Built In
Linear doesn't include native time tracking or estimation tools beyond basic story points. If you bill clients or need detailed time logs, you'll need a separate tool or integration. Jira has time tracking built in, ClickUp does too.
Not a dealbreaker for some teams, frustrating for agencies or consultancies that need to track billable hours alongside development work.
Newer Product, Smaller Ecosystem
Linear launched in 2020. It's mature enough for production use but the ecosystem is smaller than Jira's 20+ years of integrations, plugins, and community resources. If you need a specific niche integration, Jira probably has it. Linear might not.
What Makes a Good Linear Alternative?
Choosing a Linear alternative depends on what Linear doesn't do that you actually need.
Match Your Team Composition
All developers? Stick with developer-focused tools. Mixed team with designers, PMs, and business stakeholders? Look for tools with simpler interfaces that non-technical people can navigate without training.
Jira works for everyone but feels clunky. Asana is friendly but less developer-centric. ClickUp tries to serve both but gets overwhelming. Think about who uses the tool daily, not just what features it lists.
Integration Requirements
Linear integrates with GitHub, GitLab, Slack, Figma, and the essentials. If your stack goes deeper (Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, specific CI/CD tools), verify the alternative connects properly.
Jira integrates with basically everything in the Atlassian ecosystem and beyond. ClickUp has tons of integrations but some feel half-baked. Test the specific integrations you need during trials.
Customization Versus Simplicity
Do you want Linear's opinionated simplicity or more configuration options? This is a personal preference that splits teams.
More customization: Jira, ClickUp, Notion let you build elaborate workflows and custom fields. Takes longer to set up but molds to your processes.
More simplicity: Height, Shortcut stick closer to Linear's focused approach without adding bloat.
Reporting Needs
If you need detailed analytics, burndown charts, velocity tracking, and custom reports, prioritize tools with strong reporting capabilities. Linear's insights are minimal. Jira's reporting is extensive. ClickUp falls somewhere in between.
Budget and Team Size
Linear costs $8/user/month. Some alternatives cost more (Shortcut is $8.50/user), some cost less (open-source options are free). Calculate real costs for your team size including necessary features.
Also check free tier limits. Some tools offer generous free plans for small teams. Others lock essential features behind paid tiers immediately.
Jira
Best for enterprise teams needing maximum customization
Jira is the elephant in the room. It's what most teams used before Linear existed, and it's what many teams still use despite Linear's appeal.
The customization is unmatched. Custom fields, custom workflows, custom everything. You can make Jira behave exactly how you want, which is both powerful and dangerous. Teams often over-configure Jira into a slow, complex mess. But if you need flexibility, Jira provides it.
Reporting and analytics are way more sophisticated than Linear. Burndown charts, velocity tracking, custom JQL queries, dashboard widgets: you can slice data dozens of ways. Good for managers needing detailed metrics and executives wanting high-level visibility. If you're managing marketing teams, the reporting capabilities matter.
The Atlassian ecosystem is a benefit if you use Confluence, Bitbucket, or other Atlassian products. Everything integrates smoothly within their world. It's also a trap because switching away means untangling years of interconnected tools.
Where Jira falls apart: performance and user experience. It's slow compared to Linear. The interface feels dated and cluttered. New team members need training to understand the terminology and navigation. Linear onboards people in minutes; Jira takes hours.
Pricing is complicated with different products (Jira Software, Jira Work Management) and tiers. Starts around $8.15/user/month but you'll probably need additional Atlassian products, driving up costs.
Jira makes sense for large organizations already invested in Atlassian or teams needing enterprise features. It's overkill for startups and small teams who'd be happier with Linear's simplicity.
ClickUp
Best for teams wanting more views and flexibility
ClickUp positions itself as the everything app: tasks, docs, chat, whiteboards, goals, time tracking, all in one platform. It's like Linear if Linear tried to replace your entire software stack.
The view options are extensive. List, Board, Calendar, Gantt, Timeline, Workload, Table, Activity, Mind Map: pick how you want to see your work. Linear gives you a few focused views; ClickUp gives you everything and lets you choose. Great if you need full project management capabilities.
Customization goes deep. Custom fields, custom statuses, custom workflows, dependencies, automations: you can configure ClickUp to match basically any process. This flexibility appeals to teams frustrated by Linear's opinionated structure.
Time tracking is built in, which matters if you bill clients or need detailed timesheets. Linear requires third-party integrations for time tracking. ClickUp includes it natively with reports and timesheets. Check out Motion vs ClickUp for time tracking alternatives.
The downside is complexity and stability. ClickUp tries to do so much that it feels overwhelming and occasionally buggy. Views don't always refresh correctly, mobile syncing lags, and the sheer number of features creates a steep learning curve.
Pricing undercuts Linear at $7/user/month for the Unlimited plan. The free tier is generous too: unlimited tasks and members with limited storage and features. Good for budget-conscious teams.
ClickUp works for teams that want maximum flexibility and don't mind occasional bugs. It's less suitable for teams wanting Linear's polished simplicity and blazing speed.
Asana
Best for mixed teams with non-technical members
Asana isn't built specifically for developers, which is exactly why some teams prefer it over Linear. When your team includes designers, marketers, PMs, and engineers, Asana's general-purpose approach works better than Linear's developer focus.
The interface prioritizes clarity and ease of use. Non-technical team members figure out Asana faster than Linear because the terminology and workflows don't assume software development knowledge. Tasks, projects, portfolios: the hierarchy makes sense to everyone. Perfect for designers who need project tracking without engineering jargon.
Timeline view (Gantt charts) and workload management help with project planning and resource allocation. Good for teams managing multiple projects across departments. Linear focuses on issue tracking; Asana handles broader project management needs.
The automation capabilities (Rules) exist but feel less powerful than Jira's. You can set up basic triggers but won't build complex automated workflows without using Zapier or similar tools.
Asana's weakness for dev teams: no strong GitHub integration, no issue ID conventions, no keyboard shortcut obsession. It's a general project management tool trying to serve everyone, which means it serves developers less specifically than Linear.
Pricing is similar to Linear: starts around $10.99/user/month. The free tier works for small teams with limited needs.
Asana makes sense for cross-functional teams where software development is one part of broader project work. If you're a pure engineering team, Linear or Jira serve you better. Compare Monday.com vs Asana for more options.
Trello
Best for simple visual task management
Trello is the simplest option on this list. Boards, lists, cards: that's the entire interface. If Linear feels too structured and Jira feels too complex, Trello strips everything down to visual simplicity.
The Kanban approach works well for small teams or side projects. Drag cards between To Do, In Progress, Done lists. Add labels, due dates, attachments. Keep it basic and Trello shines.
The free tier is generous. Unlimited cards, unlimited members, 10 boards per workspace. You only pay ($5/user/month) for advanced features like custom fields and unlimited automation.
Where Trello falls short for software teams: no GitHub integration, no sprint planning, no issue tracking conventions. It's a generic task board, not a developer tool. You can use it for software projects but you'll miss Linear's developer-specific features immediately.
Trello works for freelancers, small teams, and simple project tracking. It's not a serious Linear alternative for engineering teams building complex software. But if you want dead-simple visual organization without Linear's structure, Trello delivers.
Notion
Best for combining project management with documentation
Notion takes a different approach: instead of giving you project management software, it gives you building blocks to create your own system.
You can build a Linear-like issue tracker using databases, views, and relations. Add documentation, meeting notes, technical specs, and knowledge base articles in the same workspace. This consolidation appeals to teams tired of juggling separate tools for tracking and documentation. Especially useful for product managers who need docs and tracking together.
The flexibility is unmatched. Design the exact fields, workflows, and views you need. No fighting against opinionated software because you define the structure. The trade-off is setup time: Linear works immediately, Notion requires building your system first.
Community templates help. Thousands of pre-built project management templates exist for common use cases. Grab one, customize it, and you're running faster than starting from scratch. Check out note-taking apps if you need more documentation-focused tools.
Notion's weakness for development teams: no native GitHub integration, no issue ID system, no developer-specific features. You're building a generic project system, not using a tool designed for software development.
Pricing is reasonable: free for individuals, $10/user/month for teams. Cheaper than Linear if you also need docs and wikis, since you're consolidating tools.
Notion works for teams that value documentation as much as task tracking and want everything in one workspace. Pure engineering teams focused on velocity and GitHub integration should stick with Linear or similar developer tools.
Shortcut
Best for teams wanting Jira power without the bloat
Shortcut (formerly Clubhouse) occupies the middle ground between Linear's simplicity and Jira's complexity. It's built for software teams but includes more customization than Linear without Jira's overwhelming bloat.
The stories, epics, and iteration structure will feel familiar if you've used agile tools before. GitHub and GitLab integrations work well. The interface is cleaner than Jira but not as minimal as Linear.
Reporting is stronger than Linear's basic insights. Burndown charts, cycle time, velocity tracking: useful metrics for teams doing scrum or kanban. Not as elaborate as Jira but more than Linear provides.
Custom fields and workflows let you adapt Shortcut to your processes without going full Jira configuration hell. You get flexibility without requiring a dedicated Jira admin to manage it.
Pricing is slightly higher than Linear at $8.50/user/month. The free tier is limited to 10 users maximum, so you'll likely need paid plans for any real team.
Shortcut makes sense for teams that find Linear too restrictive but Jira too overwhelming. It's the middle path that handles most software development needs without extreme opinions in either direction.
Height
Best for teams wanting autonomous project management
Height is the newest option here, and it's taking an interesting approach: AI-powered project management that automates the boring parts.
The core experience feels similar to Linear: clean interface, keyboard shortcuts, focused on speed. Where Height differs is the autonomous features. The AI can automatically triage issues, suggest task attributes, and organize work without manual input.
This sounds gimmicky but actually saves time on administrative overhead. Instead of manually labeling and prioritizing every issue, Height's AI handles the initial organization. You review and adjust instead of doing everything manually.
GitHub integration works well. The collaboration features include built-in chat and discussions, reducing context switching between tools. Less jumping to Slack for every conversation about a task.
The weakness is maturity. Height is newer than Linear, so the ecosystem is smaller and edge cases occasionally surface. The AI features are impressive but not perfect: sometimes the suggestions are wrong and you're manually fixing instead of manually organizing.
Pricing is competitive at $9/user/month. The AI features are included, not an expensive add-on like some tools charge.
Height works for teams intrigued by AI-powered workflows and wanting Linear-like speed with more automation. If you're skeptical of AI features or need a proven stable platform, stick with more established alternatives.
How to Switch from Linear
Moving away from Linear is relatively straightforward since it's a newer tool without decades of accumulated complexity.
Export Your Issues
Linear supports CSV export. Go to Settings > Export data and download your issues, projects, and metadata. This gives you a backup and a starting point for importing to other tools.
The export includes issue titles, descriptions, status, assignees, and custom fields. Attachments might not export depending on the format. Test the export with a small project first to see what transfers.
Check GitHub Integration Status
If you use Linear's GitHub integration with branch naming conventions and PR linking, verify how your new tool handles similar workflows. Jira and Shortcut have comparable integrations. ClickUp and Notion have basic GitHub connections but nothing as seamless as Linear.
Decide if you'll maintain the same branch naming patterns or adopt the new tool's conventions. Consistency across your Git history matters for future reference.
Migrate Active Work First
Don't try to import years of closed issues. Focus on active sprints, current projects, and open work. Historical issues can stay in Linear's free tier as a read-only archive.
Set up your new tool's project structure, import active issues, and let the team start working in the new system. Keep Linear accessible for referencing old issues until everyone's comfortable with the switch.
Rebuild Automation and Workflows
Linear's automations won't transfer. Document your important workflow rules: "When issue moves to Done, automatically link to the release" or whatever you've set up.
Recreate equivalent automation in your new tool. The syntax and capabilities differ, so exact replication might not be possible. Prioritize the workflows your team uses daily.
Give It Two Weeks
Linear's keyboard shortcuts and speed are addictive. Switching to any other tool will feel slower initially, even if the new tool is objectively good. Push through the adjustment period before judging.
Muscle memory fades after about two weeks. If you still hate the new tool after that, it's probably the wrong choice. But if it's just unfamiliarity, two weeks usually fixes it.
Consider Keeping Linear for Side Projects
Linear's free tier supports small teams. If you're switching for work but love Linear's experience, keep using it for personal or side projects. No reason to completely abandon a tool you enjoy when it's free for small-scale use.
Which Linear Alternative Should You Choose?
The best Linear alternative depends on what Linear doesn't do that you actually need.
If you're at an enterprise needing deep customization and reporting, Jira's complexity is justified despite the clunky interface.
If you want Linear's speed but more flexibility and views, ClickUp or Shortcut offer middle-ground options with more configuration options.
If your team includes non-technical members who struggle with Linear's developer focus, Asana provides friendlier general-purpose project management.
If you want to combine issue tracking with documentation and knowledge management, Notion consolidates tools into one flexible workspace.
If you're intrigued by AI-powered project management, Height offers Linear-like speed with autonomous features.
If you just need simple visual task tracking without structure, Trello strips away complexity entirely.
There's no universal winner. Linear excels at what it does: fast, focused issue tracking for software teams. Alternatives trade some of that focus for broader capabilities, different workflows, or specific features Linear deliberately omits. Try a few options with your actual work for a week before committing.