Comparison

LinearB makes the pipeline faster. Performalise makes sure it's pointed at the right thing.

Q: Does Performalise replace LinearB?

Not if you rely on gitStream or AI code review. Performalise does not automate merges, route reviews or read source code, and does not plan to. If you use LinearB mainly for the executive productivity report, Performalise answers the leader's question more directly: not "how fast is the pipeline" but "which work is moving the goal, and who is drifting this week."

Last updated 27 August 2026

LinearB is a Gartner Leader for Developer Productivity Insight: PR flow, gitStream automation, AI-tool ROI, executive reporting. Performalise is Product Development Intelligence: a goal ladder from vision to sprint, drift caught inside the team, and a coach who acts on it. One is for the engineering workflow. The other is for whether the work mattered.

+33%

More successful sprints

+45%

Stakeholder satisfaction

26K+

Team improvement ideas

±4-6w

Sprint predictability

The short answer

Choose by where your bottleneck is

Choose LinearB if the bottleneck is inside the engineering workflow: slow reviews, PR queues, merge friction, unclear AI-tool ROI. It is built for that, with gitStream automation to fix the flow, AI code review, and the APEX operating model to run the improvement programme. Developers feel it every day; executives get the reporting on top.

Choose Performalise if the bottleneck is before and around the code: commitments that drift, unplanned work that eats the sprint, goals nobody scored, a portfolio nobody can put weight on. It reads the standup as well as the tools, scores work against a goal ladder from company vision to sprint goal, and coaches the team inside the sprint through Hans or Lotte.

They overlap on DORA metrics and on forecasting. They do not overlap on standups, OKR alignment, validated value or coaching. LinearB is developer-facing with leader reporting on top; Performalise is leader-facing with coaching underneath. Below about 50 engineers most organisations pick one; above that, running both is common and the split is clean.

Goals, OKRs, drift and validated value

The part LinearB has no equivalent for

Every piece of work sits on a goal ladder from company vision down to the sprint goal. Drift shows up at the level it starts.

In Performalise every level of the ladder is a card with an owner, the teams on it, a progress figure and a status. Nobody types the status. It comes from said versus did inside the sprint and rolls up.

Level	Example	Owner · teams	Status
Organisational Vision	Make clean energy the obvious choice for every home	Eleanor Whitfield · no team	46% · On track
Business Objective	Reach profitability on residential installations	Callum Reid · Installations	25% · At risk
Product Vision	Installation in a single visit	Daniel Hargreaves · Installations, Battery Storage	25% · At risk, overdue
Product Goal	One-day battery installation kit	Daniel Hargreaves · Battery Storage, Installations	25% · Off track, overdue
Sprint Goal	Pre-wired battery cabinet	team level	Overdue

Drift is caught where it starts, then rolled up. One late sprint goal becomes an off-track product goal, then an at-risk objective, on the same screen, days before a status report could say so.
OKRs are translated, never cascaded. An objective becomes a sprint goal the team commits to. Performalise does not push OKRs down into tickets, and a ticket cannot claim it delivers a company vision on its own.
Validated value comes from what customers actually use. The value ladder is scored from product analytics (Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics 4, Amplitude): adoption, retention, sentiment. Shipping moves the work ladder; usage moves the value ladder. Validated is not proven until an experiment says so, and Performalise says that too.

Where LinearB stands: LinearB's project forecasting and executive ROI reporting sit on git and Jira data. Alignment is to projects and to AI-tool return, not to a goal ladder with a status at each level. Its integrations page (58 tools, checked 26 August 2026) lists no product-analytics tool and no meeting or transcript source, so it cannot validate whether shipped work was used, and it cannot hear what the team said in standup. Slack and Teams are present as notification channels, not as signal.

Performalise goal tree, demo data: an organisational vision at the top, two business objectives beneath it, then product visions, product goals and sprint goals, each card showing owner, teams, progress percentage and a status of on track, at risk, off track or overdue. — Demo data. The right-hand branch shows one late sprint goal rolling up to an off-track product goal and an at-risk objective.

What LinearB does well, and where it stops

LinearB is one of the best-regarded tools in its category: a Leader in Gartner's first Magic Quadrant for Developer Productivity Insight Platforms (May 2026), customers such as SurveyMonkey, Expedia, Peloton and Equinix, and 58 integrations across GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps, Jira and most AI coding assistants. gitStream, its programmable merge automation, is a real differentiator; nobody else does it as well. It stops at four points that matter to a product leader:

It is git-centric. The Essentials tier is GitHub Cloud only, and the signal starts at the pull request. Anything said in standup before the code exists is invisible to it.
It automates the pipeline; it does not coach the team. The improvement programme (APEX) is a framework the manager runs, not a coach that sits in the sprint.
Forecasting is project-level, in the Enterprise tier. There is no goal ladder from vision to sprint with a status per level, and no product-usage input to say whether a shipped project moved anything.
Pricing is per contributor with seat minimums (30 on Essentials, 50 on Enterprise), billed annually, plus usage credits. Small organisations pay for seats they do not have.

None of that is a criticism of LinearB. It is the difference between engineering productivity, which makes the pipeline faster and proves it, and Product Development Intelligence, which asks whether the pipeline was pointed at the right thing and changes what the team does next.

The detailed comparison

Feature-by-feature: Performalise vs LinearB

Capability	LinearB	Performalise
Reads the standup (Teams, Slack, Google Meet)	– (Slack and Teams for notifications only)	✓ Yes
Reads tickets (Jira, Azure DevOps, Linear)	Jira, Azure Boards	✓ Yes
Reads code and deploys	GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, CI/CD	✓ GitHub, Vercel, Supabase
Said versus did (commitment vs outcome, daily)	–	✓ Yes
Coaching inside the team, every sprint	– (APEX framework for managers)	✓ Hans or Lotte
Work scored against OKRs at team level	–	✓ Yes
Goal ladder: Organisational Vision → Business Objective → Product Vision → Product Goal → Sprint Goal	Projects	✓ Yes, with owner, teams, progress and status per level
Drift detected in the sprint and rolled up (on track / at risk / off track / overdue)	–	✓ Yes, daily
OKRs translated into sprint goals, never pushed into tickets	–	✓ Yes
Validated value from product usage (Clarity, GA4, Amplitude)	–	✓ Yes
Delivery forecast as a range with confidence	Project forecasting (Enterprise tier)	✓ ±4-6 weeks across a portfolio
DORA metrics	Yes, with benchmarks	✓ DORA as one input, no cross-company benchmarks
PR automation and merge rules (gitStream), AI code review	Yes	–
AI coding-tool adoption and ROI reporting	Yes	–
Individual developer scoring	Per-contributor metrics available	✓ Deliberately absent, patterns not people
Pricing basis	$29 or $59 per contributor per month, annual, 30 or 50-seat minimum, plus credits	✓ Per team, from $450/team/month (annual), no per-user charge

Two different jobs. LinearB makes the engineering workflow faster and proves it, PR to deploy. Performalise reads the standup, the tickets and the code to show whether the work moved the goal, catches drift inside the team, and coaches. Both read GitHub and Jira; only one reads the room. See also: the 2026 shortlist of delivery intelligence tools →

Fit check

Who is Performalise not for?

We would rather tell you now than after a sprint. Performalise is not the right fit if:

You want individual productivity scores. We measure patterns, not people. There are no per-person leaderboards, and we will not build them.
Your teams do not work in Jira, Azure DevOps or Linear. Those are the front doors today. Other trackers are also supported, just talk to us.
You want a dashboard and no coach. The signal only becomes value when the AI Coach Hans or Lotte act on it inside the team. If nobody wants coaching, you would be paying for reports, which would be sad.
You want velocity as a productivity target. Velocity is a planning signal for the team that owns it. We will not turn it into a KPI or compare it across teams.
You measure success in output. Story points closed, tickets shipped, commits per week. We tie work to outcomes: usage, retention, OKR movement. If output is the scoreboard, the signal will keep disagreeing with it.
You want OKRs pushed down into tickets. We translate an OKR into a sprint goal the team commits to. We will not cascade OKRs as task lists.
You want a date, not a range. Forecasts arrive as ranges (±4-6 weeks across a portfolio) with the confidence behind them. If a single promised date is required, we will disappoint you honestly rather than precisely.

If none of those apply, see it in action →

When to use each

LinearB vs Performalise

Different bottlenecks. Sometimes both.

LinearB is built for:

Engineering productivity for the engineering manager, with reporting for the CTO.

PR cycle time and review flow
gitStream merge automation
AI code review and AI-tool ROI
DORA with benchmarks
Project forecasting (Enterprise)
Executive productivity reporting

Performalise is for:

Product Development Intelligence for leaders who want a signal they can act on.

Goal ladder from vision to sprint goal
Drift caught inside the team, daily
Coaching through Hans or Lotte
OKRs translated, never cascaded
Value validated from product usage
Forecasts as ranges you can defend

Running both:

Common above ~50 engineers. LinearB for the pipeline, Performalise for the goal.

No overlap on standups, OKRs or coaching
Overlap on DORA; pick one as canonical
LinearB for engineering managers
Performalise for product leaders and teams
Both read GitHub and Jira read-only
Neither replaces your tracker

FAQs

Questions about comparing Performalise and LinearB

Does Performalise replace LinearB? ▼

Not if you rely on gitStream or AI code review. Performalise does not automate merges, route reviews or read source code, and does not plan to. If you use LinearB mainly for the executive productivity report, Performalise answers the leader's question more directly: not "how fast is the pipeline" but "which work is moving the goal, and who is drifting this week."

We use gitStream. Do we lose it if we add Performalise? ▼

No. Performalise reads GitHub read-only alongside your standups and tickets; it does not touch your merge rules. Many organisations keep LinearB for the workflow automation and add Performalise for the goal ladder and coaching. The two never write to the same place.

Which one tracks AI coding-tool ROI? ▼

LinearB. Its AI & Developer Productivity Insights measure Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code and similar tools: adoption, PR quality, cycle-time effect. Performalise does not measure AI tools; it measures whether the work those tools produce moved the sprint goal and, later, whether customers used it.

Does LinearB show whether work moved an OKR? ▼

LinearB forecasts projects and reports engineering productivity and AI ROI to executives. Its public site shows no goal ladder from company vision to sprint goal with a status at each level, no OKR scoring at team level, and no product-analytics input to validate whether a shipped project was used. Performalise does all three, and translates OKRs into sprint goals rather than pushing them into tickets.

How does per-team pricing compare with per-contributor? ▼

LinearB is $29 per contributor per month on Essentials (30-seat minimum, so from $10,440 a year) and $59 on Enterprise (50-seat minimum, so from $35,400 a year), billed annually, plus usage credits; prices from linearb.io/pricing on 26 August 2026. Performalise is from $450 per team per month billed annually with no per-user charge. A 50-engineer, 6-team organisation is about $35,400 a year on LinearB Enterprise before credits and $32,400 a year on Performalise Perform with coaches and stakeholders included.

Which suits a 5-team company? ▼

At five teams (roughly 30 to 45 engineers) LinearB's seat minimums mean you may pay for seats you do not have, and the Enterprise features (forecasting, cost capitalisation) start at 50. If your pain is review flow and merge friction, LinearB Essentials is still the right tool. If your pain is drift from goals, unplanned work and a portfolio you cannot trust, Performalise at five teams is $2,250 a month billed annually.