What I like most about Linear is how easy it feels to use. I work on technical projects and usually have a lot of tasks moving at the same time, so I really appreciate how quickly I can create an issue, update its status, assign it, or move it into a cycle without having to go through a bunch of extra steps.

The interface is probably my favourite part. It’s clean and fast, and it doesn’t feel overloaded with features. I also use the keyboard shortcuts quite often; once you get used to them, they make managing day-to-day tasks noticeably quicker.

I also like that Linear provides enough structure to keep development work organised without making project management feel like another job on its own. I can open it, immediately see what needs to be done, work through my tasks, and move on. That simplicity is what makes it useful for me. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The main thing I dislike about Linear is that it can take a bit of time to get used to, especially if you’re coming from something like Jira/Devrev or a more traditional project management tool. There are quite a few features and workflows, and some of them aren’t immediately obvious when you first start using it.

I also feel that some of the more advanced features can be a little too much for smaller projects. When I’m working on something simple, I sometimes get the sense that I’m not really taking advantage of everything Linear offers.

Other than that, I don’t have many major complaints. The learning curve is the biggest issue I’ve noticed, but once you get familiar with the workflow and shortcuts, it becomes much easier to work with. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Initiatives are especially useful when several projects need to roll up into the same business goal. They let us review status, priority, and progress without opening every single issue, which really matters when HR is coordinating work that spans IT, Finance, and Operations. Team Initiatives make this even cleaner because ownership can sit with the team actually driving the work, while sensitive planning can stay inside private teams when needed. Linear Asks is probably the feature that fits HR operations best. Requests can come in from Slack, email, and, on Enterprise, web forms, and then land as issues that move through triage, assignment, and follow-up. We use it for things like team changes, access requests, letters, equipment, and other operational questions that involve more than one department. The practical win is simple: HR no longer has to remember which Slack conversation still needs someone to take action. For longer initiatives, Project Updates give owners a place to report health, progress, risks, and next steps, and those updates can also flow back into Slack. That has cut down on status meetings where half the conversation was just trying to figure out what was blocked. We also use Cycles in HR Operations, but more loosely than engineering; they help us limit how much work we pretend we can finish in the same period. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The biggest limitation for me is that the most useful intake options are locked behind higher-tier plans. Slack and email intake are available on Business, but web forms are only included through Advanced Linear Asks on Enterprise. That distinction matters if HR wants Linear to function like a true internal request portal, rather than just a cleaner layer on top of Slack and email. In our case, the intake setup works well as-is, but I’d still prefer web forms on the Business plan, since that’s typically the point where HR can standardize requests without pushing employees into yet another tool. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Speed and keyboard-first design — Linear is built to be navigated almost entirely without a mouse. Cmd+K command palette, quick issue creation, instant search. It feels snappy in a way a lot of project management tools don't.

Clean, opinionated UI — Less clutter than Jira. Fewer configuration options, but what's there is well-designed and fast to learn.

Cycles and workflow structure — The built-in sprint/cycle model nudges teams toward a lightweight, consistent cadence without much setup.

Git integration — Linking issues to branches/PRs and auto-updating status based on commit or PR activity is a big time-saver for engineering teams.

Roadmaps and project tracking — Good at rolling up issues into projects and giving a clear high-level view without extra tools Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Limited customization — Linear is opinionated by design, which is great for speed but can be frustrating if your team's workflow doesn't fit its assumptions. Custom fields, workflow states, and views are more constrained than something like Jira or Monday.

Reporting and analytics are thin — Built-in dashboards and cross-project reporting tend to feel basic. Teams that need detailed metrics often export data or bolt on a separate BI tool.

Not built for non-technical teams — It's optimized for software/product teams. Marketing, sales, or ops teams trying to force-fit their work into it often find it awkward.

Steep opinionation on process — Some teams that don't already work in cycles/sprints find the imposed structure more of a fight than a help.

Pricing at scale — Some users note costs add up once you're managing many teams/seats, especially compared to more all-in-one platforms.

Fewer integrations than incumbents — It covers the essentials (Git, Slack, Figma, etc.) well, but the ecosystem is smaller than Jira's, so niche integrations may be missing. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like that Linear is fast and works well with keyboard input, which makes managing issues more efficient. The agent also works quite well, enhancing the overall experience. Switching to Linear from GitHub Issues was a great decision because GitHub Issues felt terribly slow and clunky in comparison. I also found the initial setup of Linear to be very easy, which was a pleasant surprise. Overall, these aspects make Linear a product I highly recommend, giving it a 10 out of 10 for likelihood to recommend to others. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The code diff feature in Linear feels a bit unnecessary to me. I prefer being taken directly to GitHub for code comparisons, as I find the experience there more preferable. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It really helps me organise my projects, and it’s an easy way to interact with my team, especially on issues that need some back-and-forth. The AI is good, and the connection with Claude lets me upload issues directly to Linear, which saves me a lot of time. They also let you create plenty of issues before you have to pay for the service, so you have time to try it properly before going deeper. Thanks to linear our project is more organised and more efficient so we move faster. The support is present and useful in case of need. The design is really good and interface is easy to use even if I haven't use every aspect of it just yet. It's fast and have never encountered bugs so very happy with it. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Not much to add, really. The platform is well made and helps many different people across different sectors. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Linear provides just the right level of features and performance, not bloated like Jira, but more robust than tools like Trello. The interface is slick and easy to use, and the keyboard shortcuts are great time savers. It also has excellent integration with time tracking tools like Everhour. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It does seem that AI/agents is becoming a focus, which is something our company has no current use for, but fortunately it is still opt in for now. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like most about Linear is that it's simple but doesn't feel restrictive. I've been using it for over a year and the biggest difference I see to other tools is how little overhead there is to actually using it. With Linear’s import and sync options, you can transition existing work gradually, and I’ve seen firsthand how quickly teams onboard to the new workflow because of how intuitive and responsive it feels.

Issues, projects, cycles, triage, and roadmaps all feel like parts of the same workflow. I love how fast I can go from a Slack request or bug report, to a properly tracked issue, assigning ownership, adding context, and linking it to the actual engineering work, just by tagging the Linear bot. I also use the GitHub integration a lot because the issue, PR and development status stays connected without the engineers needing to keep the tracker updated manually all the time.

As more of our dev workflow becomes AI-assisted, it's surprisingly valuable to have requirements, discussions, ownership and related work organized around an issue. That context is something an AI agent could work from, rather than having to begin by using an isolated prompt. So Linear feels less like a traditional ticket tracker and more like a shared context layer for the engineering team. I don't have visibility into the organization's licensing costs, so I can't fairly assess the value against what we're paying. From an engineering perspective, though, the productivity benefits have been significant. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The one thing I don't like about Linear is that its opinionated approach can sometimes go against you when a team has a workflow that doesn't fit nicely into how Linear expects you to work. I actually like this better than endless customization most of the time, but there are times I wish I could model something a little differently instead of working around the existing structure. I like that Linear doesn’t allow every team to create dozens of custom fields most of the time, but there are times when I want to attach one small piece of metadata to an issue and end up using a label or putting it in the description instead.

And when you reach a certain size in a project or an organization, it takes a bit of discipline to keep projects, initiatives, labels and views under control. Linear makes it super easy to build things, which is great at first, but teams can slowly develop their own ways and views. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Their AI agent is one of the few that is across the board helpful, extremely easy to use, and accessible from any surface that I want it to be.

The GitHub integration, those sort of table stakes at this point, is also so clean and easy. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Only just recently, I've had a few issues with the agent. I can't tell if that's just because I keep giving it harder tasks because it's been doing so well, or if you've downgraded the model or amount of thinking or something to save costs.

An example is I pasted in my entire meeting notes and transcript to the agent and said, "Figure out all the tickets we talked about and add comments from the notes to each of those tickets." And it didn't do very well. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Linear easily integrates with other tools like slack and GitHub to bring conversations into one central place for each ticket. It's available automations for ticket creation and assignees are useful as well and really help to streamline workflows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It is difficult to find things in linear. The default navigation shows only the ticket hierarchy for your team (I'm not aware of a way to change it) and there is no clear path to browse tickets from other teams. My most significant grievance is with the UI. The buttons to create new tickets are small and difficult to find. The default color scheme is very light and low contrast, with text being very difficult to read. Options to customize the colors exist, but the default settings should be a bit better out of the box. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I’ve used Jira before, and with Linear everything feels more intuitive and streamlined. It has a CLI and MCP built in, and it can integrate with Claude code or Codex. You can divvy up individual tickets into projects and organize them hierarchically, which makes it easier to keep work structured. You can add implementation details to the ticket itself in .md and that becomes the prd + design doc. Super easy to spin up agents using the linear ticket cause everything about the feature implementation is contained in the ticket. Overall, it feels like it’s built for agentic workflows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There isn’t much to dislike. The only thing I’d probably change is the way Slack conversations are linked to Linear. When I comment on Linear from a Slack conversation, it shows up in Slack as if it’s coming from a different user. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.