Check out what I made: a comparative scoring matrix for 6 PM tools.

Oh, wow, this is super helpful. I've only really used ClickUp and Asana, so seeing them compared like this is eye-opening.

You mentioned ClickUp's automation feeling clunky. I've found the same thing. Setting up a simple "move task" rule can take so many clicks, and sometimes it just doesn't fire. Is that what you mean?

And the Asana dependency score... that explains a lot. I always thought I was just setting it up wrong. What makes it weak, exactly? Is it just hard to see the chain?

Scoring on a 1-5 scale is a false precision. What's the real difference between a 3 and a 4 in reporting depth? You've abstracted away the actual friction.

Your Jira guest access score proves my point. A 1 is a total dealbreaker for client work. Scoring it at all suggests it's comparable, when in reality it's a binary pass/fail for many teams. The total score becomes meaningless.

Automation "flexibility" without considering the setup time or maintenance cost is just a feature checklist. Jira's triggers are powerful until you need a consultant to change them.

The scoring matrix is a decent start, but you're weighing all features equally, and they absolutely are not. A project management tool is infrastructure, and you need to weight the criteria based on what will actually bring the system down.

For a team doing client work, guest access isn't a nice-to-have column worth 25% of the score, it's a non-negotiable base requirement. Giving Jira a 1 for that and still letting it tie for the highest total is the kind of thinking that leads to buying a Ferrari when you need a pickup truck. The high power scores become irrelevant when your client can't see their own project.

You also left out the single biggest operational cost: administrative overhead. How many hours per sprint does it take to keep those "5" rated automations and reports running? That's the real scorecard.

Appreciate the effort you put into this breakdown. It's a solid starting point for cutting through the marketing.

The weight of each criterion is the tricky part, as others have noted. For my team, guest access is a binary gatekeeper. A tool scoring a '1' there is disqualified, regardless of its other scores. That doesn't make your matrix wrong, it just means the totals need careful interpretation for each team's context.

Could you share a bit on how you defined the scale for "Reporting depth"? Is a '5' about the number of default charts, the ability to build custom ones, or the ease of exporting raw data for external analysis? That might help others map your scores to their own needs.

That's a really good point about the pass/fail criteria. I've run into the same thing with trial periods - if a tool doesn't offer a 30-day trial, I just drop it, even if the features look great on paper. Scoring it a '1' still feels like it's in the running, when it's really not.

You mentioned the setup time for automations. Is there a tool you've used where the 'flexibility' score actually matched the practical effort to build something? I'm starting to think the easiest automation might be more valuable than the most powerful one.

Thanks for putting this together. I've been looking at Asana vs monday.com, so seeing Asana score low on dependencies is interesting. Was the issue the visual mapping, or is it about not being able to set certain dependency types?

You've touched on the exact problem. For me, it's both.

The visual mapping is limited and gets confusing quickly. It's hard to get a clear, at-a-glance view of a complex chain. More critically, the dependency types feel basic. You can set a task to be blocked by another, but the logic often breaks down in practice, especially when you try to model more complex workflows.

Since you're looking at monday.com, I'd be really curious about your take on their dependency model. I haven't used it enough to score it, but their column-linking approach seems promising for clarity.

Yeah, that example is really telling. Seeing the code for a simple auto-assign trigger makes the flexibility difference concrete.

If Linear is limited to status changes, how do you handle a rule based on custom fields or tags? In Jira, that's just a JQL filter, but I've heard it can get complex quickly. Is there a middle-ground tool where you get more triggers than Linear without needing to write JQL?

And on the scoring, I have a similar question about the '3' you gave Shortcut for automation. Does that mean it has more triggers than Linear's example but still falls short of Jira's power, or is it more about the user interface for setting them up?

You're hitting on the real-world snag with all these scoring systems, honestly. The '3' for Shortcut's automation, at least in my experience, is mostly about the trigger/condition limitations. It has more trigger points than Linear, for sure, like when a story is created or a field is updated, which includes some custom fields. But the logic you can build with those triggers feels like a step down from Jira's power, and the interface, while clean, can box you in when you try to chain conditions.

For a middle ground on triggers without JQL, I've actually been impressed with Height (not on the original list, I know). Their automation builder uses a 'when this, if that, then do' flow that's visual but still lets you branch logic on multiple custom fields or tags. It's not *quite* as freeform as writing a query, but it covers probably 80% of the use cases without making you feel like you need a manual.

That JQL complexity is exactly why a raw 'flexibility' score is misleading, though. A perfect '5' for power is useless if the learning curve means only one person on the team can ever touch the automations.

Yeah, the Jira guest model is a real pain point. We tried to bring in a key client for reviews and the license discussions alone killed the momentum.

Your point about Asana's dependency handling matches my experience. It works fine for simple sequences, but falls apart if you need to model anything remotely complex, like parallel approval gates. That '2' feels generous sometimes.

I'm curious about your ClickUp automation score. What made it feel clunky? Was it the builder interface or the actual execution lag?

You're missing a critical criterion: API access and audit logs.

Your automations are pointless if you can't monitor who changed what, or if you can't integrate your SIEM. Jira's APIs are documented but a mess to secure. ClickUp's audit trails are paywalled.

Scoring guest access without scoring the permission model behind it is dangerous. "Guest" can mean view-only or it can mean "can delete tasks." Which is it for your 5s?

The matrix is a good start, but it's a features list, not a security review.

> their column-linking approach seems promising for clarity

It is, but it trades one complexity for another. Monday's dependencies are built by linking columns between boards, which is great for clarity *within a single board view*. You can see the linked item right there in a column.

The catch comes when you have a complex project spanning multiple boards or workspaces. The dependency chain becomes a trail of breadcrumbs you have to click through, and there's no unified Gantt or diagram to visualize the entire network. You gain column-level clarity but can lose the holistic view, which is just as critical for complex workflows. For simpler, board-contained projects, it's a solid model.

Hey, really useful comparison! The guest access point is huge for us, since we work with freelancers a lot. I've been leaning towards Shortcut because of that.

Quick question about your Jira vs Linear automation example. You said Jira's JQL triggers are more flexible. For someone who isn't a Jira admin, how steep is the learning curve to make a simple custom trigger work? Like, is there a big jump from Linear's no-code to Jira's JQL?

Both. The visual mapping is basically just a line between tasks, no real diagram. But the logic is the bigger issue. You can't model start-to-start or finish-to-finish dependencies, only finish-to-start. That breaks any parallel workflow.