The leans split by criterion, so we declare no overall winner. Jira holds the higher means on integrations (8.5 vs 3.2), collaboration depth (7.7 vs 2.2), reporting (7.2 vs 0.0), onboarding effort (6.5 vs 5.2) and support documentation (4.3 vs 3.0): six judges lean Jira on the first three, five on the last two, one tie apiece. OpenProject takes sovereignty (6.8 vs 3.0) and pricing transparency (6.7 vs 5.3), six judges leaning OpenProject on both. Pricing transparency rests on per-user prices, printed seat minimums and a worked $2,175/year example; sovereignty on German jurisdiction, EU-only data residency and EU-only subprocessor exposure. The benches split internally too: Jira's sovereignty runs 2 to 4; OpenProject's onboarding effort runs 4 to 6 and support documentation 2 to 4. Per-judge weighted totals favor Jira each time, from 4.8 vs 4.7 for the data protection officer to 6.7 vs 3.5 for the integrator.
Choose Jira if
You wire AI coding assistants and editors into planning: the Rovo MCP server connects Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and VS Code, and integrations runs 8.5 vs 3.2 with six judges leaning Jira.
You need cross-project plans, per-person capacity management, approvals and free guest access without a seat — collaboration depth runs 7.7 vs 2.2, six judges to zero.
You need built-in analytics: Atlassian Analytics and a fully modeled Data Lake, where reporting runs 7.2 vs 0.0 with six judges leaning Jira.
You are a team of 10 or fewer starting free: Jira is free forever for 10 users with no credit card, and onboarding effort runs 6.5 vs 5.2 with five judges leaning Jira and one tie.
You must choose your hosting region: Jira's data residency attribute reads EU optional and its verdict credits customer-selectable data residency across Atlassian's global cloud footprint; OpenProject's attribute reads EU-only.
Choose OpenProject if
You need EU sovereignty terms: jurisdiction Germany, EU-only data residency and EU-only subprocessor exposure on record — sovereignty runs 6.8 vs 3.0 with six judges leaning OpenProject.
You must budget before talking to sales: per-user prices, printed 25/100/250 seat minimums and a worked $2,175/year example; pricing transparency runs 6.7 vs 5.3, six judges to zero, while Jira's verdict notes a missing Standard price.
Your procurement needs GDPR paperwork before signing: a named German DPO, an Article 28 DPA signable in the cloud, and SCCs.
You want self-hosting as a full exit from the vendor's cloud, from OpenProject GmbH of Berlin under GPLv3.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The UX Purist
Measures time-to-first-value with a stopwatch. Optimizes for clarity, density and software that teaches itself. Rejects fourteen-step setups and empty screens that offer no way forward.
Jira
This judge's pick
OpenProject
Criterion by criterion
Collaboration depth
Jira
Cross-project plans, capacity management, and free guest access that doesn't burn a seat are all on the record — team-level planning is first-class. Dependencies are never evidenced and permission settings are paid-only, which keeps it at 8 rather than the span-everything 10.
OpenProject
Fine-grained role-based access at individual project level proves a second user has a defined seat, so this clears rubric level 0 — but that is the entire collaboration case the evidence makes. No assignment, comment, timeline, dependency or workload capability appears anywhere; planning depth is an empty screen from where I stand.
Reporting
Jira
Atlassian Analytics with a low-code chart builder plus a fully modeled Data Lake is configurable, cross-product reporting, not canned status views. But budgets, utilization depth, and any export path — scheduled delivery, API, CSV — are absent from the evidence, which caps it below the 8 anchor.
OpenProject
Nothing on the evidence answers 'where is the work?' — no progress, time, budget or utilization view, no dashboard, no export path. The only API mentioned checks for new software versions, which reports on the vendor, not on the project; silence here is the answer.
Integrations
Jira
Thousands of marketplace apps, a CLI, and a first-class MCP surface into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, and VS Code — this is ecosystem-grade extensibility where the tool is itself a platform. The only unevidenced pieces are real import paths from competitors and a complete API-export exit, so 9, not 10.
OpenProject
A handful of marquee hooks — Google SSO, Nextcloud/openDesk via OpenID Connect gated to the 250-user Corporate tier, mobile apps — plus a version-check API that covers zero of the product. That is rubric level 3 almost verbatim; public GPLv3 code on GitHub is extensibility in principle, but the evidence documents no plugin or product-API surface to hang it on.
Onboarding effort
Jira
Free forever for 10 users with no credit card means the self-serve gate is wide open. But the evidence proves only that you can start cheap — it is silent on guided setup, templates, defaults, and importers, so nothing evidences minutes-to-value for a newcomer.
OpenProject
A genuinely free Community tier with no user minimum and a 14-day trial that is 'risk-free without cancellation' means no sales call and no card — real friction removed. But nothing evidences guided setup, templates or importers, and the on-premises mode is a deployment project, not minutes-to-value; I can credit the fast door, not the first hour behind it.
European sovereignty
Jira
Atlassian Pty Ltd, Sydney, NASDAQ-listed: a non-European company under non-European control, with 'no sovereignty attributes on record.' Data residency is selectable within Atlassian's own cloud footprint, but nothing contractually fixes EU residency and no DPA or subprocessor list appears anywhere in the evidence.
OpenProject
A Berlin GmbH with EU-hosted Enterprise Cloud, an Article 28 DPA signable in-product, SCCs and external audits — plus GPLv3 self-hosting as a total exit — is substance, not paperwork.
Support & documentation
Jira
Support is strictly plan-gated: Free gets 'Community Support' only, Standard 'Local Business Hours', and 24/7 is reserved for Premium and Enterprise. The learning surface is dark in this sheet — not one fact evidences a help center, onboarding guides, or a changelog, and entry-tier users are on their own.
OpenProject
Tiered support hours are published for every plan and there is a security contact plus an advisories mailing list — more than a contact form. But the evidence evidences no help center, no guides, no templates, no chat, no response times and no changelog; a GitHub repo is not a learning surface, and a stuck user's path to unstuck is undocumented.
Pricing transparency
Jira
Free ($0, 10 users) and Premium ($14.54/user/month) are on the page with a monthly/annual toggle and an explicit 'SAVE UP TO 17%'. But the Standard tier's price is missing from the record, tax treatment is silent, the headline number's billing period is unstated, and Enterprise is 'Contact sales' — enough haze to sit below the 8 anchor.
OpenProject
Every paid tier is priced per user with seat minimums stated on the page, a free tier exists, the BIM surcharge is public, and there is a worked example — $2,175 for 25 Basic users over a year — whose arithmetic matches the headline exactly. Kept from 8: billing-period options and tax treatment are never stated, and Corporate is on request; the 25-seat floor is a barrier for small teams, but at least it is an honest one.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
Jira
OpenProject
Legal entity
Not determined
Incorporated in DE
Ownership
Not determined
Not determined
Data residency
Not determined
Not determined
Subprocessors
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.