Bugzilla vs. Jira
|
| Bugzilla | Jira |
| Basic | Open source | Commercial license |
| Server-Side Architecture includes Perl and MySQL | Server-Side Architecture includes Java (J2EE), MySQL, Tomcat and Lucene | |
| Pros: Bugzilla | Server Load is low. Because the Perl scripts act as simple Common Gateway Interfaces and can be highly sped up with mod_perl. On large databases the database may become the bottleneck when doing search queries. | Server Load is considerable compared to Bugzilla. Because JIRA is a more complex system and typically executes a whole lot more of the server side code per web request |
| Has a very high security due to full open source code revelation and usage by Mozilla and some other big player. | Compared to Bugzilla, JIRA security risks are somewhat higher due to the larger overall complexity. | |
| Supports security groups which are quite flexible, but a bit complex feature for grouping users & issues and granting permissions. | Has simpler permissions model which is straighter and possibly more appropriate. | |
| Has a quite powerful advanced search features. | JIRA lacks some of the expert level search conditions that Bugzilla can do and searching for text in JIRA issues may be limited by how Lucene index works. | |
| Pros: Jira | Has not considered much about developing its user interface over years. | Provides a far better user interface than Bugzilla. |
| Custom field types available in Bugzilla are Text fields, Multi-selection, Drop-down, Date/time, Bug ID | Custom field types available in Jira are Text fields, Number fields, Multi-selection, URL fields, Group pickers, Labels, Multi Checkboxes, Date/time, Multi User Pickers and many more than Bugzilla |