compare
Searching for agile project management software tools usually means one of two very different problems has become urgent. Either the sprint is running fine and the tool cannot report on it, or the tool is fine and the sprint is not really a sprint. Buying software fixes the first problem and makes the second one more expensive.
It is worth separating them before comparing anything, because the tools in this category are not competing on the same ground. Some are issue trackers built around a backlog and a cadence. Some are general work management platforms with a board view added. Some are board tools that also carry dates, and are being asked to run a sprint because the team already lives in them. All three get called agile tools.
Issue trackers with a cadence built in. Work items have a state machine, an estimate field, and a home in either a backlog or a sprint. The product enforces the boundary between what is committed and what is not. Jira and Linear sit here. These tools assume a team that ships software and that the backlog is the source of truth for planning.
General work management platforms. Tasks, fields, multiple views, automations, reporting across projects. Agile is a way of configuring them rather than a shape they impose. Asana and monday.com sit here. They are stronger when part of the team is not doing sprint work at all, because the same account holds marketing, operations and delivery without pretending they run on the same clock.
Board tools that carry dates. A card is a card, and the value is that nobody needs training. Trello sits here, alongside tools that ship kanban, Gantt, calendar and chat together as views on one card set. They do not enforce a sprint boundary. That is a real limitation for a team that needs velocity numbers, and an advantage for a team of six where the ceremony was never the problem.
The mismatch that costs the most is putting a team whose work arrives unpredictably into an issue tracker that wants a groomed backlog. The backlog becomes fiction within a month and the reports built on it are worse than no reports.
Strip the vocabulary away and a sprint needs six things from a tool. Most products in this category deliver the first three easily and differ sharply on the rest.
An ordered backlog. Not a list with a priority field, an actual sequence, because the top of the list is the only planning artifact anyone reads. If reordering takes more than a drag, it stops happening.
A size or estimate field that can be summed. Whether the unit is points, hours or shirt sizes matters far less than whether the total is visible at commit time.
A commitment boundary. Something that separates this iteration's set from everything else, and that resists quiet edits. This is the feature most often missing in board tools, where a new card dropped into the middle of the sprint column looks exactly like a card that was planned.
A board with a visible work in progress count. The board is not the point. The column limit is the point, because the limit is what turns a queue into a flow.
A record of what moved and what did not. Velocity is only useful as a memory. A tool that cannot tell you what carried over from last time cannot help you plan the next one.
Somewhere the decisions live. Retro actions and the reasoning behind a scope cut have to be findable eight weeks later, attached to the work rather than scrolled past in a chat channel.
The first four are product features. The last two are usually where a rollout fails, and they are cheap to fix by convention once someone decides where things go.
Notice what is not on the list. Burndown charts, story point calculators and velocity dashboards are downstream of the six items above, and a tool that produces them from a backlog nobody grooms is producing decoration. Buying the reporting before the practice exists is the most common way an evaluation goes wrong, because the demo looks exactly like the outcome the team wants.
The free plan is the rehearsal, and the shape of its cap decides whether the rehearsal is honest. A cap on objects lets the whole team work until the real limit is reached. A cap on people means the tool is being judged by two people on behalf of eight. These are the limits listed in September 2026.
| Product | Free plan cap | Notable inclusion or omission on free |
|---|---|---|
| Jira Free | 10 users, 2 GB storage, 150 automation steps per subscription per month | Backlog, list, board, timeline, calendar and summary views all included |
| Linear Free | 2 teams, 250 issues, 10 MB per upload, no member cap | Unlimited members, so a whole team can rehearse |
| Trello Free | 10 collaborators and 10 boards per Workspace, 10 MB per file, 250 command runs per month | Calendar and Timeline views are not on free |
| Asana Personal | 2 users | List, board and calendar only; timeline and Gantt begin on Starter |
| monday.com Free | 2 seats, 3 boards, 3 Docs, 8 column types | Timeline and Gantt views begin on Standard |
Jira's free tier is the outlier here in a way that matters for agile work specifically. Ten users is a real team, the backlog and board are both present, and the timeline view is included rather than gated. The trade is administrative weight: schemes, workflows and permissions are configurable to a degree that a team of six will not use and will have to navigate around.
Linear's cap runs the other way. Members are unlimited, so nobody is left outside, but two teams and 250 issues arrive quickly. Trello's ten boards and ten collaborators cover a small team comfortably, with the caveat that the date views most planning depends on sit behind Premium.
Per seat headline rates are a poor comparison on their own, because the useful question is what the first paid step unlocks and how the count is done.
| Product | First paid step, per user per month | What that step adds |
|---|---|---|
| Trello Standard | $5 billed annually, $6 monthly | Unlimited boards, custom fields, advanced checklists, 1,000 command runs |
| Trello Premium | $10 billed annually, $12.50 monthly | Calendar, Timeline, Table, Dashboard and Map views |
| Linear Basic | $10 billed annually | 5 teams, unlimited issues, unlimited uploads, admin roles |
| Linear Business | $16 billed annually | Unlimited teams, private teams and guests, insights |
| Asana Starter | $10.99 billed annually, $13.49 monthly | No seat limit, timeline and Gantt, dashboards, forms, unlimited guests |
| Asana Advanced | $24.99 billed annually, $30.49 monthly | Portfolios, goals, resource management, native time tracking |
Two details change the arithmetic more than the rates do. Asana sells seats in blocks: one at a time between two and five total users, then in blocks of five up to thirty. A team of six is therefore billed for ten seats, so the sixth hire doubles the subscription. Trello and Linear count per person in a straight line.
The other detail is guests. Asana includes unlimited free guests from Starter, and Linear adds guest accounts on Business. If half the people who need visibility only read and comment, guest handling is worth more than a dollar of per seat difference. Tools that price on headcount and board count instead, with every view included from the start and no paid tier required to see a Gantt chart, shift the same question to whether the team is above or below the free headcount line.
Most small teams are not running a pure sprint. There is an iteration for the build and an immovable date for the launch, the client review or the compliance filing. When the iteration lives in one tool and the date lives in a spreadsheet, the two stop agreeing within about three weeks and the spreadsheet wins because it is the one the stakeholder reads.
The requirement that follows is unglamorous: the same card set has to be visible as a board and as a timeline, without an export step. Where a product puts that capability is therefore a real decision criterion, not a feature checkbox. Jira includes a timeline view on its free plan. Asana puts timeline and Gantt on Starter. Trello puts Timeline on Premium. monday.com puts Timeline and Gantt on Standard. Tools that treat every board type as a view on the same cards, with kanban, Gantt, calendar and a timetable grid all present from the free plan, remove the question entirely, and the trade there is usually thinner automation and a smaller integration catalogue. The full set of side by side comparisons sets out those trades one product at a time.
Software cannot install a practice. It can only make the practice cheaper or more expensive to follow. So the useful selection question is which failure the team keeps repeating.
The sprint fills up after it starts. The tool needs a hard boundary, an ordered backlog, and a carryover record. An issue tracker earns its administrative cost here.
Nobody updates the board. The tool is not the problem. Reduce the number of fields required to move a card, and put the board where the team already is. A lighter product with fewer required fields wins outright.
Work arrives from outside and derails the plan. The need is an intake path: a form that creates a card in a triage column, so interruptions become visible instead of verbal. Forms and automations are the features to check, and they usually sit on the first paid tier.
Two people know the status and nobody else does. The gap is reporting and visibility for people who will never log a task. Guest handling and a read only view matter more than sprint mechanics.
Decisions vanish. The record needs a home attached to the work. A comment thread on the card, or a chat channel that can reference a card, beats a separate wiki that nobody opens. How a tool connects conversation to cards is visible on any Features page and is worth checking before the trial rather than after.
Pick the failure from the list above that has cost the most in the last quarter, then trial exactly two products against it with the whole team inside the free plan, not two evaluators. If the free plan caps people rather than objects, that product cannot be trialled honestly, and a tool that includes every board type free for a team of five, such as Pinateca, is the cheaper way to find out whether the practice or the software was the problem.
Of the products listed here, Jira Free is the only one that covers eight people, with a cap of 10 users, 2 GB of storage and 150 automation steps per month, and it includes backlog, board and timeline views. Linear Free has no member cap but stops at 2 teams and 250 issues. Trello Free covers 10 collaborators but does not include Timeline or Calendar views.
A board is enough when the problem is visibility and the team already finishes what it starts. A dedicated tool earns its cost when the sprint keeps filling up after it starts, because the boundary between committed and uncommitted work is the thing a plain board does not enforce. Velocity reporting is the other reason, and it only helps teams that plan against it.
Asana sells seats in blocks. Between 2 and 5 total users seats are added one at a time, then in blocks of 5 up to 30 total users. A team of six therefore pays for 10 seats. Trello and Linear count per person instead, so a sixth hire adds one seat's worth of cost.
They answer different questions and both get asked in the same week. The board shows what is moving now and the timeline shows whether a committed date is still reachable. The problem is not the chart, it is maintaining two copies of the plan in two tools. Using one card set with both views avoids that.
Run one real iteration, not a sample project. Move actual work through the board, hold the planning and review with the tool open, and at the end check whether the tool can tell you what carried over. If it cannot answer that without someone reconstructing it by hand, the reporting will not survive contact with a busy month.