A pragmatic review of self-hosted alternatives for modern teams and why I’ve started building a leaner solution for our own needs.
Motivation
For me, Jira was the gateway to Agile methodology and the Kanban principle. Since discovering it, I haven’t wanted to miss the methodology for a single day. I use Kanban in my professional life, but also privately, and even within my family.
Unfortunately, years ago, Atlassian discontinued our server licenses. Now, they are forcing us into the cloud — whether we like it or not. Aside from that, Jira has always been too expensive. My team actually only used about 30% of the features; in exchange, the software has developed into a “Moloch” over the years: vulnerable, complex to configure, plagued by frequent security updates, and burdened by long startup times.
Because we don’t want to lose the methodology, but we absolutely have to move away from Jira, I set out on a journey.
In Europe, everyone talks about IT Sovereignty. An “Exit Jira/Atlassian” strategy would be sovereignty in action. But which company actually follows through?
Since I no longer had access to Jira myself but refused to give up the Agile way of working, I spent some months attentively collecting information and testing tools. This article is the result of that journey.
The Criteria for a Well-Founded Analysis
To do this properly, we need a checklist. At the very top stands Open Source. As a lesson learned from the Atlassian disaster (Vendor Lock-in) and the resulting loss of our own agency, any alternative must provide its software as Open Source on GitHub or similar platforms. Even if this is only guaranteed for a “Community Edition,” it ensures that in an emergency, we could take the source code and develop it further ourselves. This only counts, of course, if that edition includes the essential functions and a permissive license.
I am not trying to cover the functional scope of Jira 1:1. I am limiting myself to core functions and a pragmatic, sensible implementation. My target audience is Agile (DevOps) teams with lean regulations and a free way of working. I’d gladly trade a few barely used features for software that is slim, stable, and secure.
To keep this analysis focused, I have defined the following “KO Criteria” (Exclusions):
- No Classic Project Management: I am leaving out traditional PM software. I want a tool for Agile methodology, not a replacement for Microsoft Project. ;)
- No Legacy Bloat: This comparison is not for companies that need Jira for complex legacy processes, rigid quality gates, or endless checklists.
- No Simple Task Lists: I am not looking at simple To-Do apps.
- No Cloud-Only: True sovereignty requires Self-Hosting. If we can’t control the installation and the data, it doesn’t make the list. Even EU-hosted, GDPR-compliant clouds don’t protect us from a provider’s future forced migrations.
Finally, the tool should feel good. Nothing is worse than having to work daily with software you don’t enjoy using. Therefore, the UI plays a major role.
TL;DR: The Quick Summary
For those short on time, here is the summary of results, recommendations, and my personal conclusion. See “The Long Story” for a detailed presentation of the checklist and the technical results of the individual tool assessments.
The assessment was done along the following categories:
- Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Features
- Architecture
- Deployment
- Security / Privacy
Tool Assessments by Recommendation Status
- ❌ ❌ Asana, Blossom, Backlog: Enterprise software trying to fully replace Jira. Closed source, requires registration, and can be very expensive.
- ❌ Open Project, Plane: Open Source, but uses an “Open-Core” model. Overloaded with features, but essential features are often missing in the community/free editions.
- ❌ Kanboard, WeKan, Kanba: 100% Open Source, but the tools are either no longer maintained or the UI feels significantly outdated. I would not like to work with it.
- ✅❓ Kan.bn, Kaneo, Vikunja: 100% Open Source with strong communities. Slim, attractive Kanban-focused applications. However, they lack core features familiar to Jira users and are positioned more as Trello substitutes. Limited recommendation.
- ✅❓ Planka: Features are comparable to the category above. Strong community and public source code, but the license (not Open Source) imposes restricted usage terms. Limited recommendation.
This is only my personal opinion. So, there is no “you must use this tool” statement. Instead, everyone must assess and decide for themselves, based on their specific team methods and priorities. So, use this information but decide for yourself… 😉
Conclusion: Why I started building my own tool?
But if I were asked which tool I would actually choose, I would say “none of them”. Unfortunately, no tool fulfilled all my requirements. If a tool looks good, it lacks features. If the features are there, the UI is clunky. If the function is okay, the license is not.
Even the tools with a partly recommended rating have these issues:
- Missing Core Features: Release management (aka versions or milestones) is not there at all, not to mention the support for SCRUM. Backlog management is mostly not there or poorly implemented. Tools are rather positioned as a substitute for Trello and not for Jira.
- Signs of accumulated technical debt and too many dependencies used. This unnecessarily increases the supply chain surface and results in an increased effort for maintenance and updates.
- Security issues: Too many useless, redundant, deprecated, or not-maintained dependencies used, no HTTP security headers to protect clients against XSS, partly weak access/session token management.
- No tool combines a classic Kanban board view with flexible daily planning to easily organize the workflow and time side-by-side.
I realized that the ‘perfect’ balance between the complexity of Jira and the simplicity of a basic board doesn’t really exist. That’s why I started my own project “wuflow” to see if I could bridge that gap.
It’s an attempt to marry a nice, modern UI with the ‘Sovereign’ requirements of a self-hosted agile engine, combined with a security-first approach. It is currently in its early stages — focused on being lean, secure, and open-source. It’s not a ‘Jira-killer’ for everyone, but it’s a step toward true IT sovereignty.
As a side note: I also wanted to see how far I could get with AI-assisted development anyway, building a new tool from scratch while keeping the supply chain surface as small as possible.
And I like to make good things, which simply work and provide added value. There is a deep satisfaction to have full control over concepts, code, features, implementation, prioritization…
If you share this vision, I’d love for you to check it out on GitHub, give it a star, deploy and test yourself, and raise issues for bugs or new features:
pwurbs
/
wuflow
wuFlow is a simple, modern, and lightweight issue tracking and planning application.
wuFlow
General
wuFlow is a simple, modern, and lightweight issue tracking and planning application. It is designed to combine the immediate visual overview of a classic Kanban board with structural planning capabilities to help you organize tasks effectively without unnecessary complexity This tool wants to help you to organize, balance and track the work in a team to achieve a better flow of work by a transparent visualization. This is one of the main intentions of a Kanban board. The usage is not limited to software development teams, it can be used by any person, group or even families that wants to organize and track their work.
We developed this app having the following goals in mind:
- Create a modern and lightweight issue tracking solution focused on the mostly used core functions to ensure a good flow of work.
- Can be used without expensive subscriptions or being forced into…
The Long Story
Checklist Details
Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Self-hosting: Must be possible and well-documented.
- Availability: Source code must be public (e.g., on GitHub).
- Licensing: A permissive Open Source license for unrestricted usage (AGPL is the absolute baseline).
- Community Integrity: Any feature restrictions in a “Community Edition” must not violate the core feature requirements below. We are evaluating self-hosted versions, not Cloud SaaS offerings.
- Maintenance: Active development, regular official releases (with notes), and a transparent security process.
- Cost: The tool must be free, at least for individuals or small teams.
Features
- Lean Agility: Focused on core features. No bloated “feature monsters” that are difficult to manage. Keep it simple, stupid!
- UX/UI: A clean, modern interface with Drag-and-Drop functionality.
- Kanban: Configurable columns to match the team’s flow.
- Backlog Management: A dedicated area to prepare and refine issues before they move to the board.
- Archiving: Ability to move issues to a read-only area for future reference.
- Release Support: Management of versions or milestones for tracking specific deliveries.
- Multi-Project: Separation of work into different project domains.
- Granularity: Support for subtasks or checklists, labels, and prioritization per issue.
- Discovery: Robust filter and search capabilities.
- Content: Rich text descriptions (Markdown preferred), issue comments, and attachments.
- Context: Support for issue dependencies and internal links.
- Time Management: Deadlines for both issues and subtasks, plus a daily planning/calendar function.
- User Management: Role-based access control (RBAC) and project assignment. Authentication via local user and optionally via OIDC.
- Configuration: Straightforward in-app configuration.
Architecture
- Modern Stack: Lightweight software with minimal legacy burden.
- Pragmatic Frameworks: Avoidance of unnecessary “framework bloat.” We only want dependencies that provide real value, thereby maximizing independence and reducing maintenance overhead.
- Supply Chain Security: Minimizing the dependency surface to reduce security risks.
Deployment
- Configuration as Code: Simple, flexible system bootstrap configuration.
- Containerization: Deployable via a publicly available, well-maintained container image.
- Easy Evaluation: The ability to test the tool without complex external dependencies (e.g., internal SQLite support for dev/testing).
- Speed: The tool must start and stop quickly.
- Cloud Native: Kubernetes-ready with health check endpoints, Prometheus metrics, and Helm charts.
- Persistence: Support for external databases (PostgreSQL preferred) and S3 storage for file uploads.
Security / Privacy
- Identity: Secure authentication, session, and token management. Transfer in cookies.
- Cookie Security: Tokens and session IDs must use secure attributes (httpOnly, Secure, SameSite, MaxAge).
- Hardened Headers: Essential HTTP security headers must be set (especially a strong Content Security Policy) to protect the client.
- Self-Containment: No external libraries or dependencies should be loaded at runtime; all code must be packaged into the binary.
- Minimal Supply Chain Surface: Only essential, actively maintained dependencies.
- Privacy-First: Zero tracking, zero telemetry, and no “calling home.”
My Assessment Methodology
In my experience, it doesn’t make sense to assign weights to these criteria and calculate a numeric score. Often, a metric will tell you a tool is “mathematically” 90% perfect, yet it still feels wrong or clunky in daily use. I prefer to view the tool as a holistic entity.
To save you from reading massive, unmanageable comparison tables, I have applied a “Fail-Fast” audit approach. I assess each tool category by category, starting with its Open Source status. The moment I encounter a “hard violation” of a core criterion, I stop the assessment. Because of this, e.g. you won’t find a deployment analysis for every tool — if it failed on licensing or core features.
To keep this guide concise, I will focus on the relevant negative findings; I will only highlight positive points if they are truly exceptional.
Let’s dive in…
Legend
❌ No recommendation or KO criteria reached.
⚠️ Some issues to be considered but no hard stop.
✅ Requirements met or (limited) recommendation.
The Tool List
Asana, Blossom, Backlog
I mention these tools only because they frequently appear at the top of “Best Jira Alternatives” search results. However, for a team seeking IT sovereignty, they are non-starters.
❌ Self-hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Proprietary / Closed Source: No access to the underlying code.
- Cloud-Only / Account-Locked: Requires third-party registration and hosting.
- Restrictive Pricing: Free tiers are often limited to 1–2 users; professional use requires expensive monthly subscriptions.
❌ Summary
No Recommendation. These tools are simply a move from one “Black Box” (Atlassian) to another. They offer no path toward true independence or code-level control.
Open Project
Website: https://www.openproject.org
Github: https://github.com/opf/openproject
✅ Self-hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Open-Core Model: While the base is GPL licensed, the “Enterprise Add-ons” are contained in the same repository but require a paid license key to unlock.
❌ Features
- Paywalled Essentials: Paradoxically, for a tool often marketed for Agile, the Agile Boards (Kanban and Team-Boards) are missing from the Community Edition.
- No Community SSO: Essential security features like OpenID Connect (OIDC) or SAML are also restricted to paid versions.
- Complexity Overload: It attempts to be an all-in-one suite (Gantt charts, time tracking, cost modeling), leading to a cluttered and overcomplicated UI that violates the “Keep it Simple” principle.
❌ Architecture / Security
A high volume of critical security patches suggests systemic flaws in the process or architecture, demanding a relentless cycle of constant patching.
❌ Summary
No Recommendation. OpenProject is a legacy “feature monster.” It is bloated, difficult to manage, and hides the most crucial agile features behind a paywall. It fails the “IT Sovereignty” test because your team’s agency is still restricted by a vendor’s license key.
Plane
Website: https://plane.so/
Github: https://github.com/makeplane/plane
✅ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Open-Core Model: Uses the AGPL license, but the repository primarily contains only the free/community features.
- Paywall Strategy: Essential features for scaling are intentionally kept out of the open-source version.
❌ Features
- The “Power” Trap: While extremely powerful and feature-rich, it suffers from the same bloat we are trying to escape. It feels like it’s trying to do everything for everyone.
- Restricted Essentials: Crucial features for professional agile teams are missing from the Free Edition:
- User Cap: Limited to only 12 users in the free version.
- No Release Management: Milestones and Cycles (their version of Sprints/Releases) are severely restricted or locked behind tiers.
- No OIDC: Single Sign-On (SSO) is a paid enterprise feature.
❌ Architecture
- Technical Debt & Complexity: The software has grown massive over the years. It is a large codebase with a high number of dependencies, making it a heavy lift to maintain and secure.
❌ Summary
No Recommendation. Plane is too big, too complex, and too restricted. Like OpenProject, the most valuable agile functions are only available in paid, closed-source editions. It is essentially “Jira in a prettier dress,” carrying over the same issues of feature bloat and vendor dependency. For a team seeking a lean, truly sovereign tool, Plane is simply “too much.”
Kanboard
Website: https://kanboard.org/
Github: https://github.com/kanboard/kanboard
❌ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Pure Open Source: 100% open source without “Community Edition” limitations.
- MIT License: Very permissive.
- Maintenance Warning: The Github repository is officially marked as being in Maintenance Mode.
❌ Features
- Fragmented Functionality: Most advanced features require third-party plugins. However, there is no official approval process or code review for these plugins, creating a massive security and stability risk.
- Missing Core Agile Features:
- No Backlog Management: It only offers a single board column, lacking a true staging area for refinement.
- No Archiving: Issues can only be “closed,” losing visibility and context.
- No Release Management: Standard agile hierarchy and delivery tracking are absent.
- OIDC only via plugin.
- UX: The interface feels like a relic from the early 2000s — it looks pretty old-fashioned.
❌ Summary
No Recommendation. While it fulfills many checklist items regarding licensing, open source, and simplicity, it lacks required modern polish and active development. Relying on unvetted plugins to achieve basic functionality (like OIDC) contradicts the “Security-First” approach.
WeKan
Website: https://wekan.fi/
GitHub: https://github.com/wekan/wekan
✅ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- 100% Open Source: No “Premium” tiers or gated features.
- MIT License: Very permissive.
❌ Features
- Dated Interface: The UI feels cluttered and stuck in the past. It lacks the “snappiness” and clean aesthetics of modern web applications.
⚠️ Architecture / Deployment
- MongoDB: WeKan relies on MongoDB. While technically functional, this is an “unusual” choice for a modern, lean tool. Furthermore, MongoDB’s SSPL license can create complex legal hurdles for certain production environments and enterprise compliance.
❌ Summary
No recommendation. Even though WeKan is widely used and respects the user’s freedom, it fails the “Feel Good” test. In a world of modern, high-performance web apps, its UI is a significant barrier to adoption. Additionally, the dependency on MongoDB adds unnecessary architectural and licensing weight.
Kanba
Website: https://www.kanba.co
GitHub: https://github.com/Kanba-co/kanba
⚠️ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- Open Source Status: 100% open source under the MIT license.
- Maintenance Concerns: The last release on GitHub was in August 2025. Is it maintained anymore?
❌ Features
- Vague Capabilities: The documentation is remarkably thin. Both the website and GitHub offer only generic buzzwords like “Kanban boards” and “Team collaboration,” without detailing the actual depth of the features.
- High Barrier to Entry: It is currently impossible to easily “test-drive” the self-hosted option without a significant manual setup effort.
⚠️ Deployment
- Poor Developer Experience: Documentation for self-hosting is lacking. Most notably, there is no public container image available, forcing users to build from source.
❌ Security
- Vulnerable Core: A quick audit reveals outdated dependencies containing Critical and High-severity security vulnerabilities (e.g. next, flatted, glob, and lodash).
❌ Summary
No Recommendation. I fail to see the logic in offering a self-hosted version without providing a ready-to-use container image. The combination of stagnant development, critical security vulnerabilities, poor documentation, and the lack of an easy evaluation path makes Kanba a risky choice.
kan.bn
Website: https://kan.bn/
Github: https://github.com/kanbn/kan
✅ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- 100% Open Source: No feature limitations or “paywalled” tiers for the self-hosted version.
- License: AGPL.
⚠️ Features
The UI is sleek, responsive, and covering many items from the checklist. However, there are significant gaps for professional Agile teams:
- Missing Core Logic: No native release management (versions) and no archive management.
- Disconnected Backlog: While you can create a dedicated backlog board, it isn’t integrated with the active working boards.
- Missing Productivity Tools: No full-text search, no issue dependencies/links, and no daily planning functionality.
⚠️ Architecture / Deployment
- While the project is “fresh” and free of legacy code, its modern stack comes with a dependency bloat.
- The choice of dependencies is questionable for a lean tool. It uses a heavy stack (Next.js, tRPC, Drizzle, Stripe SDK, Novu, i18n). In my opinion, some of these are unnecessary for a self-hosted engine and increase the maintenance burden and attack surface.
⚠️ Deployment
Self-hosting via container images is well-documented, but there are some issues:
- Database Rigidness: The app requires an external Postgres container. I was unable to get it running with the internal PGlite database for easy testing.
- Unusual Setup: It uses a migration script to initialize the database on the first run, which is non-standard.
- Missing Orchestration: No Helm chart is available for Kubernetes deployments.
- Release Status: GitHub only lists “prereleases,” which may decrease trust for teams requiring a stable production environment.
⚠️ Security / Privacy
- The supply chain surface is a concern here. There are too many direct and transitive dependencies. This amongst others results in:
- Trivy found 1 critical and 12 high-severity issues in the container image
- Some used packages or not maintained anymore (react-beautiful-dnd, tiptap-markdown) or didn’t get any updates during the last 2 years.
- Missing security headers: No X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Strict-Transport-Security, or Content-Security-Policy headers are configured.
✅❓ Summary
Limited Recommendation. This is a potential project with a nice UI. If your team is moving from Trello, this is a recommended “Sovereign” choice. However, if you are moving from Jira, the missing release/backlog features and the security “noise” from the dependency bloat are hard to ignore. It’s a great board, but not yet a complete “Agile engine.”
Kaneo
Website: https://kaneo.app/
Github: https://github.com/usekaneo/kaneo
✅ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- True Open Source: MIT License with a clear “free forever” commitment.
- Permissive MIT license.
⚠️ Features
Kaneo covers significantly more ground than kan.bn and feels more like a professional platform. However, the “Agile” depth is still shallow:
- The Good: Strong integration ecosystem (GitHub, Gitea, Slack), S3 support for attachments, and a surprisingly functional Gantt view.
- Agile Hierarchy: It includes a backlog and archive management, though the archive lacks a “Read-Only” mode to prevent accidental edits.
- The Gaps: It lacks daily planning, subtasks, and release management(versions).
- Flexibility: A major drawback for many teams is that Kanban columns are not yet configurable — you are stuck with the predefined workflow.
- UI/UX: The interface is clean but follows a very “dark/gloomy” aesthetic that may not appeal to everyone.
⚠️ Architecture
- Modern Stack: Built on a clean, modern foundation (Next.js, Postgres).
- Too many overlapping frontend dependencies: For example, the project bundles multiple markdown renderers and a rich-text editor, which feels redundant and increases the bundle size.
✅ Deployment
- Self-hosting via Container image well supported and documented.
- Fast startup.
- Helm chart available.
- App only runs with external Postgres container.
⚠️ Security / Privacy
- Supply Chain: With over 80 production dependencies, the attack surface is wide.
- Maintenance Debt: Several “utility” libraries (like tippy.js) have fallen behind or are no longer actively maintained.
- Missing security headers: No X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Strict-Transport-Security, or Content-Security-Policy headers are configured.
✅❓ Summary
Limited Recommendation. Kaneo is a strong evolution of the minimalist board concept. While similar, it provides a more complete feature set than kan.bn — specifically its backlog, archive management, and Gantt view — making it a viable candidate for general project management. However, for professional Agile teams, the lack of subtasks, release management, and configurable columns could be significant hurdles. If you can embrace the gloomy UI and are prepared to manage the security/dependency risks yourself, Kaneo is a recommended tool, especially given its credible “free forever” open-source promise.
Vikunja
Website: https://vikunja.io/
Github: https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja
✅ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- True Open Source: AGPL license with a firm commitment: “Vikunja is and always will be Open-Source and freely available”.
- No Paywalls: 100% open source without feature limitations for the self-hosted version.
⚠️ Features
Vikunja covers a large portion of our checklist and offers diverse working modes, but it is more “To-Do” oriented rather than purely Agile.
- Rich Views: Provides List, Gantt, Table, and Kanban views out of the box.
- Time Management: The “Upcoming” section offers better time visibility than its peers, though it only lists deadlines/start dates and lacks true day-to-day planning.
- Missing Agile Core: No backlog management, no task archiving, no releases (versions), and no activity log.
- Admin Limitations: Lacks a global admin dashboard to centrally manage all users, roles, and cross-project assignments (relies heavily on Team-level management).
- UX Inconsistencies: While the main board UI is clean, the interface for editing individual tasks or projects feels clunky and poorly designed.
✅ Architecture / Deployment
- Modern Stack: A fresh, well-designed application without historical legacy bloat.
- Operations: Self-hosting via Container image well supported and documented, fast startup, and very easy to deploy for testing.
- Observability: Native Prometheus metrics included out of the box.
- Optimization: Some frontend dependencies could still be pruned to reduce supply chain risks.
⚠️ Security / Privacy
- Hardening: Missing essential security headers (No Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or X-Content-Type-Options headers are set).
- Token Storage: JWT access tokens are stored in localStorage, exposing them to potential XSS attacks (though the refresh token correctly uses HttpOnly cookies).
- Patching Fatigue: A high frequency of security fixes is a double-edged sword. While it shows active maintenance, it can also be a symptom of architectural weaknesses or a flawed testing process.
- Active Threats: At the time of writing, there is a critical security advisory that has been open on GitHub for over two weeks.
✅❓ Summary
Limited Recommendation. Vikunja is comparable to kan.bn and Kaneo but feels significantly more mature regarding deployment, operational options (like Prometheus metrics), and integrations. Unfortunately, it suffers from the exact same missing Agile features: no archiving, no backlog management, and no releases. Furthermore, the UI takes some getting used to. Because of the frequent security patches and active advisories, adopting Vikunja requires a highly disciplined, well-organized update management process. If you can handle the operational overhead and don’t strictly need Jira’s release hierarchy, it is a highly capable and recommendable tool.
Planka
Website: https://planka.app
Github: https://github.com/plankanban/planka
⚠️ Self-Hosting / Open Source / License / Costs
- The “Open Source” Trap: Planka does not use an OSI-approved open-source license. It uses a custom “Community License” with significant restrictions on commercial and business use.
- Business Use: While free for internal use within your own organization, any use beyond that requires a paid Pro edition or Cloud subscription.
- Feature Gating: Several features (like the Calendar view and the “Card Inbox”) are locked behind the Pro version.
⚠️ Features
- Visualization: UI is fine, but the visualization of the cards in the row („list“) of the Kanban board takes some getting used to. Colors are not configurable.
- No backlog management like in Jira, only the “First Column” method, which is not sufficient.
- No release management to track versions or milestones.
⚠️ Architecture
While a mature open-source project, it shows clear signs of accumulated technical debt. There is some weakness in security and dependency usage. E.g. the project relies on Sails.js — a framework that is increasingly considered a legacy burden in 2026.
✅ Deployment
Deployment via Docker is seamless, documentation is excellent, and it offers a well-maintained Helm chart for Kubernetes. Startup is remarkably fast.
⚠️ Security / Privacy
- Hardcoded Secrets: The application uses hardcoded default secret keys and, alarmingly, does not check or force a change at startup.
- No HTTP security headers: No X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, or Referrer-Policy
- Frontend Risk: There is a high XSS risk due to the usage of dangerouslySetInnerHTML, compounded by the total lack of Content Security Policy (CSP) and other security headers (HSTS, X-Frame-Options).
- Dependency Jungle: The project suffers from extreme “micro-package” bloat, partly unmaintained or deprecated. Also, it loads 20+ different highlightjs-* packages, each from a different maintainer, significantly increasing the supply chain attack surface.
✅❓ Summary
Limited Recommendation. Planka feels “Enterprise-ready” in its documentation and deployment, but the custom license and technical debt tell a different story. If you need a simple, visual workflow and value the support of a German-based company (a plus for GDPR and maintenance), Planka is a solid choice. However, if you are seeking a truly sovereign, modern, and secure Jira replacement with deep Agile logic, Planka’s “Sails.js” foundation and restrictive license make it a difficult long-term bet.
Top comments (0)