Tempo

Name: Tempo
Brand: Tempo Software
Rating: 4.3 (329 reviews)

Tempo is a Jira-native B2B software suite that captures time inside Jira, supports capacity and portfolio planning, and links time to cost and portfolio reporting for operational visibility.

Est 2015|76 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 16K|Website|FTEs 368|HQ Boston, Massachusetts, US

Published May 18, 2026

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

The organization requires end-to-end invoicing and client payment workflows without additional integrations.
The organization requires native client e-signature/approval workflows as a first-class feature.
Jira usage is minimal or only a small subset of users are on Jira (licensing coupling may be inefficient).

Reliability / outage considerations

The vendor maintains public status pages and reports incidents such as slow data sync with Jira. Some reviewers report outages and intermittent bugs.

Reporting and scale limitations

Multiple sources and reviews indicate performance lags with large or complex reports.

Admin overhead / org changes

Ongoing maintenance of teams and permissions as staff changes is a recurring customer concern.

Roadmap / lifecycle considerations

The vendor retired LiquidPlanner Classic as of December 31, 2025 (sunset notice). Buyers considering Portfolio Manager should confirm which version they will receive and any migration requirements.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by customer feedback patterns

Native Jira integration is consistently cited as a primary differentiator across review platforms.
Approvals and governance features (teams, approvals, permissions) support enterprise use cases.

Unique selling points that are vendor-claimed and should be validated

Vendor statements about AI-assisted timesheet suggestions and accelerated logging are notable but require independent validation via pilots or vendor-provided methodology details.
Statements of rapid ROI should be evaluated in the context of enforcement, adoption, and reporting needs for each buyer.

Areas where competitors have clear advantages

Billing and invoicing workflows (Harvest)
Lower cost or free entry tiers (Clockify/Toggl)
Simplified UX for non-Jira users (standalone trackers)

Why customers chose Tempo (as implied by reviews)

Common selection themes:

Jira-native workflow (reduced context switching and potentially higher adoption within Jira-centric teams)
Manager approvals and team structures for timesheet governance
Reporting functionality sufficient for many billing/capex/opex and delivery visibility use cases (though some customers request deeper combinations)

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment snapshots (qualitative)

Tempo Timesheets is well rated on G2.
Tempo Timesheets is well rated on Capterra.
Tempo Timesheets is well rated on Software Advice.

These aggregate sentiment indications are generally positive while also highlighting recurring operational complaints (administration complexity, reporting performance, incidents).

Direct quotes (positive and negative)

**Capterra (positive + improvement asks):** - Positive (integration/admin): - "For issue-oriented end-users (e.g. developers), it's a great tool. Easy to use. Seamlessly integration with Jira. Easy administration." - Critical (workflow mismatch + reporting limits): - "For account oriented end-users… Logging time against an issue and then assigning it to an account never feels right… …Reporting works great for what's built-in but still needs improvement… Dumping into Excel is the workaround here." **G2 (positive):** - "ability to Log Time directly from the Jira ticket (issue)." - Project reporting use case: - "This reporting tool provides easy to read reports per project or per resources and fine grained permissions can be set…" **G2 (negative):** - "There are known bugs and frequent outages." - Harsher negative review: - "Recurring bugs enough to cause significant productivity loss…" **Software Advice (negative themes summarized from verified reviews):** - "Some cons… are how expensive the monthly fee is and the slow moving system." - "The software can experience lags with large reports or complex setups." **Community discussion (Jira-focused functional gap):** - A Jira community post highlights a missing workflow: "Tempo doesn't support E-Signatures… we have to download as a PDF and get them to sign off manually… or send through Docusign etc."

Why some customers leave / don’t purchase (churn drivers)

Recurring themes include:

Performance/scale issues (large reports, large org complexity)
Administrative overhead (ongoing team maintenance and permissions complexity)
Price sensitivity (SMBs comparing to lower-cost standalone trackers)
Feature gaps for client-facing workflows (e.g., e-signature/client sign-off not supported natively)

Consultancy: Planner / Capacity Planner

A vendor customer story states Planner was implemented to address capacity planning and workload visibility.
Critical view: This is a vendor-published case study with qualitative results. Quantified ROI metrics and third-party verification are limited in the public materials.

Consultancy: Timesheets + Structure PPM

Vendor materials describe improved visibility into billable hours across hierarchies using Structure.
Critical view: The case study illustrates workflow alignment but lacks independently validated metrics (e.g., billing cycle time reduction, margin improvement).

Vendor-claimed outcomes that require validation

- Vendor announcements reference AI features that materially reduced time to log hours and that a substantial share of customers used AI suggestions after launch. - **Critical note:** These statements are vendor-provided; methodology (sample size, measurement method, cohort selection) and independent validation are not fully disclosed. Procurement teams should request supporting data and pilot results if these features are decision-critical.

04Best fit

Company sizes (practical ranges)

Most suitable: 50–5,000+ employees where Jira is a core system of record and time tracking is required for billing, capex/opex, or compliance.
Also viable: 10–50 employee Jira-centric consultancies (if willing to invest in configuration and licensing).

Industries / verticals

Software and technology product development
IT and internal engineering organizations
Professional services and consultancies that use Jira for delivery
Enterprises with PMO/portfolio governance needs

Roles and personas

Economic buyer: PMO leader, delivery leader, CFO/controller (for cost governance)
Technical buyer: Jira admin, Atlassian platform owner
Daily users: engineers, consultants, delivery teams

Qualification criteria (strong fit)

The organization already runs delivery in Jira and seeks to minimize context switching.
Approvals, auditability, and reporting must be connected to Jira issues.
The procurement strategy is to build a broader PPM/SPM stack around Jira (Structure PPM, capacity planning, roadmapping).

05The pitch

What the product does (objective core value proposition)

Tempo is a B2B software suite focused on Jira-native time tracking and portfolio/project planning. Its products are primarily sold as Jira apps (Cloud/Data Center) and are positioned to help organizations: - Capture work effort (time logs) reliably inside Jira (Timesheets) - Plan capacity and staffing (Capacity Planner / Planner) - Connect time → cost → portfolio reporting (e.g., Financial Manager/Cost Tracker, Structure PPM) - Build portfolio visibility and roadmaps (Structure PPM; Strategic Roadmaps) - Perform predictive scheduling / scenario planning (Portfolio Manager) Tempo’s stated positioning is described by the vendor as "Adaptive Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM)", which the vendor describes as linking strategy, execution, and outcomes using operational data from Jira and other work systems. Official vendor marketing language is presented as directional and is not independently validated in this report.

Target market and market positioning

- **Primary buyer/user environment:** Jira-centric organizations (engineering, IT, professional services) that need auditable time tracking and management reporting. - **Typical personas:** Jira admins, PMO/portfolio managers, resource managers, finance/controlling, delivery leadership. - **Positioning:** The vendor presents Tempo as extending beyond basic time tracking into broader PPM/SPM capabilities through acquisitions and product bundling ("Collections"). Tempo competes with both Jira marketplace apps and standalone PSA/PPM tools.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Tempo including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published May 18, 2026

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

The organization requires end-to-end invoicing and client payment workflows without additional integrations.
The organization requires native client e-signature/approval workflows as a first-class feature.
Jira usage is minimal or only a small subset of users are on Jira (licensing coupling may be inefficient).

Reliability / outage considerations

The vendor maintains public status pages and reports incidents such as slow data sync with Jira. Some reviewers report outages and intermittent bugs.

Reporting and scale limitations

Multiple sources and reviews indicate performance lags with large or complex reports.

Admin overhead / org changes

Ongoing maintenance of teams and permissions as staff changes is a recurring customer concern.

Roadmap / lifecycle considerations

The vendor retired LiquidPlanner Classic as of December 31, 2025 (sunset notice). Buyers considering Portfolio Manager should confirm which version they will receive and any migration requirements.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by customer feedback patterns

Native Jira integration is consistently cited as a primary differentiator across review platforms.
Approvals and governance features (teams, approvals, permissions) support enterprise use cases.

Unique selling points that are vendor-claimed and should be validated

Vendor statements about AI-assisted timesheet suggestions and accelerated logging are notable but require independent validation via pilots or vendor-provided methodology details.
Statements of rapid ROI should be evaluated in the context of enforcement, adoption, and reporting needs for each buyer.

Areas where competitors have clear advantages

Billing and invoicing workflows (Harvest)
Lower cost or free entry tiers (Clockify/Toggl)
Simplified UX for non-Jira users (standalone trackers)

Why customers chose Tempo (as implied by reviews)

Common selection themes:

Jira-native workflow (reduced context switching and potentially higher adoption within Jira-centric teams)
Manager approvals and team structures for timesheet governance
Reporting functionality sufficient for many billing/capex/opex and delivery visibility use cases (though some customers request deeper combinations)

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment snapshots (qualitative)

Tempo Timesheets is well rated on G2.
Tempo Timesheets is well rated on Capterra.
Tempo Timesheets is well rated on Software Advice.

These aggregate sentiment indications are generally positive while also highlighting recurring operational complaints (administration complexity, reporting performance, incidents).

Direct quotes (positive and negative)

Capterra (positive + improvement asks):

Positive (integration/admin):
- "For issue-oriented end-users (e.g. developers), it's a great tool. Easy to use. Seamlessly integration with Jira. Easy administration."
Critical (workflow mismatch + reporting limits):
- "For account oriented end-users… Logging time against an issue and then assigning it to an account never feels right… …Reporting works great for what's built-in but still needs improvement… Dumping into Excel is the workaround here."

G2 (positive):

"ability to Log Time directly from the Jira ticket (issue)."
Project reporting use case:
- "This reporting tool provides easy to read reports per project or per resources and fine grained permissions can be set…"

G2 (negative):

"There are known bugs and frequent outages."
Harsher negative review:
- "Recurring bugs enough to cause significant productivity loss…"

Software Advice (negative themes summarized from verified reviews):

"Some cons… are how expensive the monthly fee is and the slow moving system."
"The software can experience lags with large reports or complex setups."

Community discussion (Jira-focused functional gap):

A Jira community post highlights a missing workflow: "Tempo doesn't support E-Signatures… we have to download as a PDF and get them to sign off manually… or send through Docusign etc."

Why some customers leave / don’t purchase (churn drivers)

Recurring themes include:

Performance/scale issues (large reports, large org complexity)
Administrative overhead (ongoing team maintenance and permissions complexity)
Price sensitivity (SMBs comparing to lower-cost standalone trackers)
Feature gaps for client-facing workflows (e.g., e-signature/client sign-off not supported natively)

Consultancy: Planner / Capacity Planner

A vendor customer story states Planner was implemented to address capacity planning and workload visibility.
Critical view: This is a vendor-published case study with qualitative results. Quantified ROI metrics and third-party verification are limited in the public materials.

Consultancy: Timesheets + Structure PPM

Vendor materials describe improved visibility into billable hours across hierarchies using Structure.
Critical view: The case study illustrates workflow alignment but lacks independently validated metrics (e.g., billing cycle time reduction, margin improvement).

Vendor-claimed outcomes that require validation

Vendor announcements reference AI features that materially reduced time to log hours and that a substantial share of customers used AI suggestions after launch.
- Critical note: These statements are vendor-provided; methodology (sample size, measurement method, cohort selection) and independent validation are not fully disclosed. Procurement teams should request supporting data and pilot results if these features are decision-critical.

04Best fit

Company sizes (practical ranges)

Most suitable: 50–5,000+ employees where Jira is a core system of record and time tracking is required for billing, capex/opex, or compliance.
Also viable: 10–50 employee Jira-centric consultancies (if willing to invest in configuration and licensing).

Industries / verticals

Software and technology product development
IT and internal engineering organizations
Professional services and consultancies that use Jira for delivery
Enterprises with PMO/portfolio governance needs

Roles and personas

Economic buyer: PMO leader, delivery leader, CFO/controller (for cost governance)
Technical buyer: Jira admin, Atlassian platform owner
Daily users: engineers, consultants, delivery teams

Qualification criteria (strong fit)

The organization already runs delivery in Jira and seeks to minimize context switching.
Approvals, auditability, and reporting must be connected to Jira issues.
The procurement strategy is to build a broader PPM/SPM stack around Jira (Structure PPM, capacity planning, roadmapping).

05The pitch

What the product does (objective core value proposition)

Capture work effort (time logs) reliably inside Jira (Timesheets)
Plan capacity and staffing (Capacity Planner / Planner)
Connect time → cost → portfolio reporting (e.g., Financial Manager/Cost Tracker, Structure PPM)
Build portfolio visibility and roadmaps (Structure PPM; Strategic Roadmaps)
Perform predictive scheduling / scenario planning (Portfolio Manager)

Tempo’s stated positioning is described by the vendor as "Adaptive Strategic Portfolio Management (SPM)", which the vendor describes as linking strategy, execution, and outcomes using operational data from Jira and other work systems. Official vendor marketing language is presented as directional and is not independently validated in this report.

Target market and market positioning

Primary buyer/user environment: Jira-centric organizations (engineering, IT, professional services) that need auditable time tracking and management reporting.
Typical personas: Jira admins, PMO/portfolio managers, resource managers, finance/controlling, delivery leadership.
Positioning: The vendor presents Tempo as extending beyond basic time tracking into broader PPM/SPM capabilities through acquisitions and product bundling ("Collections"). Tempo competes with both Jira marketplace apps and standalone PSA/PPM tools.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Tempo including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →