Jira and Lalabase, honestly compared.
For small software firms that have outgrown Jira in the other direction, and want to know what they give up by moving.
This page is ours, so it is not neutral. Jira is in many ways the more powerful tool, and the three points further down say when that is exactly why you should stay.
Guido Boyke, founder
What Jira does well
Workflows, fields, permissions and automations can be configured down to the detail. What you need can be modelled in Jira, if someone has the time for it.
For almost any requirement there is a Marketplace app, from time reporting to test management. We do not have that choice.
Data residency is available in eleven regions, Germany among them, from the Standard plan upwards. Anyone claiming otherwise has not looked it up.
The comparison in detail
As of August 2026, researched in Atlassian's own documentation: pricing structure, data residency, Rovo availability and time tracking. We deliberately name no amounts, because they change without this page noticing. This means Jira Cloud without Marketplace apps.
| Feature | Jira | Lalabase | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tasks and boards | Yes, extensively configurable | Yes, list and kanban, status and fields per project | Depends on you |
| Sub-tasks and links | Multi-level, with relations between issues | Sub-tasks, deliberately one level only, without relations between tasks | Jira ahead |
| Wiki and documentation | Through Confluence, a product of its own | From your repository, readable in the project without repository access | Depends on you |
| Time tracking | Basic on the issue; reporting and billing through Marketplace apps | On the ticket, billable per session, CSV for your invoice | Lalabase ahead |
| Client conversations | Not provided for as an object of its own | An object of its own with transcript, summary and derived tasks | Lalabase ahead |
| AI answers | Rovo, included from Standard upwards, provider not selectable | Built in, provider and jurisdiction selectable, off by default | Lalabase ahead |
| Client access | Through Jira Service Management, a product of its own | Built in, with rights of its own, taking no paid seat | Lalabase ahead |
| Pricing structure | Per user, per product separately | One price for the team, tiered by size | Lalabase ahead |
| Where the data sits | Data residency selectable, Germany included | Germany, data processing agreement included | Depends on you |
| Who is behind it | Atlassian, publicly listed, based in the USA and Australia | A German company; the founder answers the phone himself | Depends on you |
| Extensions | A marketplace with thousands of apps for almost any need | No apps, and so nothing that breaks on update | Jira ahead |
When Jira remains the better choice
When you need multi-level sub-tasks or real relations between issues. We have sub-tasks, but deliberately only one level: a tree nobody can hold in their head was the problem we set out to solve. If you need that depth, it is not a point of contention but a reason to stay.
When you are a very large team, more than two hundred people, or have several areas with different workflows. Jira is built for that, and we are not.
When your workflow is built around a particular Marketplace app. Then that is exactly what you lose by moving, and we have no replacement.
Your issues come along.
Send your export and you get your projects back set up, together with the honest word on what gets lost along the way.
Talk about the exportThe export of your projects is enough, exactly as Jira produces it.
Projects, issues, statuses and the fields you actually use. By hand, in an environment just for you.
At your own material rather than at demo data. What was multi-level becomes flat, and you see at once whether that bothers you.
See it rather than believe it.
Create an account, drop in the export, and compare what actually matters to you.