Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Workzone | Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
Tempo creates embedded solutions that enable organizations, including some of the world’s most prestigious brands, to track, plan, manage and understand time, their most constrained resource.
| Metric | Workzone: PullRequest Workflow | Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 4.8 ★ | 4.1 ★ |
| Total reviews | 23 | ★ 896 |
| Active installs | 223+ | 26,977+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
| Pricing | — | From $1/yr |
| Pricing tiers | — | 6 tiers |
| Listed features | 3 | 3 |
Based on the data on this page, Workzone: PullRequest Workflow is the stronger choice for most Atlassian Marketplace teams — 4.8★ vs Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking's 4.1★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking has the larger user base (896 reviews vs 23), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Workzone: PullRequest Workflow's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage teams who need fast install and low risk should default to Workzone: PullRequest Workflow; mid-market and enterprise teams with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking's 896-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Workzone: PullRequest Workflow's broader-but-shallower coverage.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Atlassian Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: Workzone: PullRequest Workflow audit • Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking audit
| Keyword | Workzone | Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking |
|---|---|---|
| time | Not ranked | #7 |
Workzone: PullRequest Workflow has the higher average rating (4.8★ from 23 reviews) compared to Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking (4.1★ from 896 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Workzone: PullRequest Workflow holds the higher average rating (4.8★ vs 4.1★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Atlassian Marketplace. Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking has the deeper published review base (896 vs 23), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Workzone: PullRequest Workflow typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (23 reviews). Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (896 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. Workzone: PullRequest Workflow and Timesheets by Tempo - Jira Time Tracking both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Workzone: PullRequest Workflow" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.