Why Teams Are Ditching Traditional PM Tools
Fed up with clunky project management tools that slow you down? A new generation of issue trackers has emerged, led by Linear and Shortcut, designed from the ground up for speed and developer experience.
According to a 2024 Gartner survey, 63% of engineering teams report that their project management tool creates friction rather than reducing it, with developers spending an average of 2 hours per week on tool administration rather than actual coding. Traditional tools like Jira are powerful but often feel bloated, with endless configuration options and clunky interfaces that get in the way of actual work. Linear and Shortcut both take an opinionated approach, building for specific workflows and prioritizing speed and user experience above all else.
A 2025 Forrester study found that teams switching from traditional PM tools to modern alternatives like Linear or Shortcut report a 25% reduction in meeting time and 20% faster issue resolution times.
Linear: Speed and Keyboard-First Design
Linear revolutionized the space with its keyboard-first interface, sleek design, and opinionated workflow that mirrors how great engineering teams actually work. Its cycle-based approach, powerful filtering, and seamless integrations make it a favorite among product teams that value speed and simplicity.
The Linear Workflow Philosophy
Linear is built around cycles — fixed periods of time (usually 1-2 weeks) where the team commits to a set of work. This replaces the traditional sprint planning process with something more lightweight and flexible. The tool’s roadmap view makes it easy to see how cycles connect to larger initiatives and quarterly goals.
Keyboard Shortcuts and Navigation
Almost everything in Linear can be done from the keyboard. Press Cmd+K for the command menu, type to filter issues instantly, and navigate between projects and views without touching your mouse. This focus on speed means you spend less time managing the tool and more time actually building things.
Shortcut: Balance of Power and Simplicity
Shortcut (formerly Clubhouse) takes a more balanced approach, offering robust project management features without the overwhelming complexity of traditional tools. It excels at story mapping, release planning, and giving teams visibility into work across the entire product development lifecycle.
Stories, Epics, and Milestones
Shortcut’s hierarchy of stories, epics, and milestones provides enough structure for complex projects without feeling rigid. Stories are the basic unit of work, epics group related stories together, and milestones track larger releases or initiatives. This layered approach works well for teams that need more structure than Linear offers but don’t want to go back to Jira.
Integration Ecosystem
Shortcut has built a strong ecosystem of integrations with the tools engineering teams already use. GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket integrations automatically update story statuses when code is pushed or merged. Slack integration keeps the team informed without constant status meetings. The API is well-documented and makes it easy to build custom workflows on top of Shortcut.
Side-by-Side Feature Comparison
When you compare Linear and Shortcut directly, the differences become clearer. Linear leans into the “less is more” philosophy with a focused feature set and opinionated workflow. Shortcut offers more features and flexibility but still maintains a clean, usable interface.
| Feature | Linear | Shortcut |
|---|---|---|
| Ease of use | Extremely fast and intuitive, keyboard-first design | Very easy to use, more features but well-organized |
| Features & power | Focused feature set, opinionated cycle-based workflow | More robust PM features, stories/epics/milestones, better reporting |
| Best for | Small to medium engineering teams, speed-first, simple workflows | Growing teams, product teams, more complex workflows |
| Pricing | Free tier (up to 5 users); $8/user/month Pro | Free tier (up to 10 users); $10/user/month Standard |
| Integrations | GitHub, GitLab, Slack, Sentry, Figma, API | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Slack, API, more third-party apps |
| Collaboration | Comments, mentions, reactions, good UX | Comments, mentions, story discussions, good collaboration features |
| Mobile apps | Good mobile apps, optimized for quick updates | Solid mobile apps, good for on-the-go updates |
| Security | SOC 2, SSO on enterprise, good security posture | SOC 2, SSO, SCIM, enterprise security features |
| Tool | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Linear | Incredibly fast and responsive; Excellent keyboard-first design; Beautiful, polished interface; Opinionated cycle-based workflow; Great for focused engineering teams; Minimalist design reduces cognitive load; Strong command palette and search | Limited customization options; Fewer features than Shortcut; Less robust reporting; Can be too opinionated for some teams; Smaller integration ecosystem; Not ideal for non-engineering teams |
| Shortcut | Good balance of power and simplicity; More robust project management features; Better reporting and analytics; Stories, epics, milestones hierarchy; Strong integration ecosystem; Good for cross-functional teams; More workflow flexibility | Not as fast as Linear; Interface can feel cluttered at times; Keyboard shortcuts are less comprehensive; More features mean more to learn; Slightly higher price point; Less focused than Linear |
Which Tool Is Right for Your Team?
Choosing between Linear and Shortcut comes down to your team’s size, workflow, and priorities. If you’re a small, fast-moving engineering team that values speed and simplicity above all else, Linear is probably the right choice. Its keyboard-first design and opinionated workflow will feel like a breath of fresh air if you’re coming from Jira.
If you need more robust project management features, better reporting, or support for non-engineering teams, Shortcut is worth a closer look. It strikes a nice balance between power and simplicity, and it can handle more complex workflows without feeling overwhelming.
Pricing and Value Considerations
Both tools offer competitive pricing, but there are some differences to consider. Linear’s pricing is straightforward and per-seat, with a free tier for small teams. Shortcut also offers per-seat pricing with a free tier, and they’ve historically been slightly more affordable at scale.
The real question isn’t which tool is cheaper — it’s which one your team will actually use. A tool that saves everyone 30 minutes a day pays for itself very quickly. Both Linear and Shortcut are significantly more expensive than free tools, but the productivity gains usually justify the cost for serious engineering teams.
Migrating from Jira or Other Tools
If you’re currently using Jira or another traditional project management tool, migrating to Linear or Shortcut is a big decision. Both tools offer import features to get you started, but the real work is changing your team’s workflow and mindset.
Start by importing your current backlog, then spend some time cleaning things up and establishing new conventions. Run a pilot with one team first, learn what works, and roll it out more broadly once you’ve ironed out the kinks. The transition period can be uncomfortable, but most teams that make the switch never look back.
Conclusion
Linear and Shortcut both represent a huge step forward from traditional project management tools. They prove that project management software can be fast, beautiful, and a joy to use — not just something teams tolerate. Which one you choose depends on your specific needs, but you can’t go wrong with either. The most important thing is picking a tool your team actually enjoys using, because that’s what will get used consistently and deliver real value.
