Planning & issue tracking
Ahead of the forges outright; against Jira specifically, the gap is now narrow.
Against the forges, KHUB's planning tools are ahead outright. Against Jira specifically — a dedicated, decades-deep planning product — KHUB now matches its two headline differentiators (sprint velocity and workflow automation) for free, and the remaining gap is narrow: Jira's automation engine covers more trigger types, and it has a dedicated customer-facing service desk product KHUB doesn't attempt to be.
| Feature | KHUB | GitHub | GitLab | Gitea | Forgejo | Jira |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issues, labels, assignees, comments | ||||||
| Kanban boards | ✓ (Projects) | Limitedbasic | Limitedbasic | ✓ core strength | ||
| Issues shared across every repo in a project | ✓ org-level Projects | ✓ group boards | Limitedmostly per-repo | Limitedmostly per-repo | ||
| Milestones with automatic progress | ✓ (Versions) | |||||
| Cross-project roadmap / Gantt timeline | ✓ every tier | $Team+ | $Premium Epics | $Premium Advanced Roadmaps | ||
| Sprints & velocity tracking | ✓ every tier — milestones double as sprints | $Premium | ✓ core strength, abstract story points | |||
| Built-in issue automation rules (no YAML/scripting) | ✓ every tier | Limitedvia Actions, requires YAML | Limitedvia CI, requires YAML | ✓ extensive, more trigger types | ||
| Customer-facing service desk | $Premium | $separate Jira Service Management product | ||||
| Free-tier user cap | unlimited | unlimited | unlimited | unlimited | unlimited | Limited10 users, then per-seat |
KHUB's velocity tracking uses time estimates (minutes) rather than Jira's abstract story points — a deliberate choice: a concrete unit teams already log time against, rather than an arbitrary scale each team has to calibrate for itself. See Issues, boards & milestones and Automation rules for how both actually work.