Consider it for
Product teams organizing issues, cycles and project delivery.
Project Management · Tool profile
Linear
Product development system for issues, projects, cycles and connected workflows.
Plan at a glance
Plans & sources ↓- Starting plan
- Free
- Includes
- Unlimited members · 2 teams · 250 issues
Limits & source scope
10 MB per upload; selected AI workflows need separate credits.
Selected source read 2026-10-26Capability sources read 9 October 2026. These are documentation observations; no product test was performed.
Research scope & testing evidence
Current plan facts
Official sources checked 26 October 2026. Public annual prices; USD default confirmed in Linear terms. Annual totals below are arithmetic, not invoices.
| Plan | Cost & billing | Allowance | Restriction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | Unlimited members · 2 teams · 250 issues | 10 MB per upload; selected AI workflows need separate credits. |
| Basic | USD 120/user/year · annual payment (12 × USD 10, calculated) | 5 teams · unlimited issues | USD 10/user/month equivalent billed yearly; tax and AI credits extra. |
| Business | USD 192/user/year · annual payment (12 × USD 16, calculated) | Unlimited teams and issues | USD 16/user/month equivalent billed yearly; tax and AI credits extra. |
| Enterprise | Custom quote | Provider-configured | Annual contract; request a quote. |
Official source ↗ · Dated receipt
Review scope: official documentation only; no account workflow or output-quality test. Earlier observations below retain their original dates.
How we would evaluate it
Linear makes sense when delivery revolves around a queue of clearly defined product work. The advantage of a focused system is that status and ownership can stay easier to interpret than a fully customizable workspace. The tradeoff is process fit: a team handling unrelated operations or long narrative documentation may still need another home for that work. Run a real planning cycle before migrating, check what customers and non-engineering colleagues need to see, and keep the authoritative roadmap in one place. AI workflow credits should be budgeted apart from the seat subscription.
Editorial judgement. This analysis draws from the linked documentation and the workflow described here. It is not a benchmark or a report of using the product.
Fit and limits
Fit and limits
Check before committing
Team limits differ by plan and AI features can require separate usage credits. A general document workspace serves a different job.
What the documentation confirms
What the documentation confirms
- Vendor features cover planning, issue tracking, cycles and AI workflows.
Source read 9 October 2026. Feature access can depend on plan, region and account.
Earlier pricing observations & sources
Price and billing scope
Official pricing ↗Source read · USD
Public annual subscription view; default USD under the vendor terms. Monthly-billing amounts were not checked.
- FreeFree
Unlimited members; 2 teams; 250 issues; 10 MB file uploads.
- BasicUSD 10 / user / month equivalent, billed yearly
5 teams; unlimited issues.
- BusinessUSD 16 / user / month equivalent, billed yearly
Unlimited teams; private teams and guests.
- EnterpriseCustom
Annual billing; contact provider.
Some coding sessions and Loops require separate opt-in AI credits. Annual equivalents are not invoice observations. Source receipt.
Recorded editorial criteria
Recorded editorial criteria
These are the previously recorded editorial opinions used in the directory. They have no individually recorded assessment date and were not rescored during this documentation refresh. They are not product-test results.
| Functionality | 9/10 |
|---|---|
| Pricing value | 8/10 |
| Ease of use | 9/10 |
| Reliability | 9/10 |
| Founder fit | 9/10 |
Try one complete task
Move one active project, connect the repository and run a cycle. Check issue intake, stakeholder access and export before moving the backlog.
Create a trial worksheet →Compare requirements
Edited by Clinton Feyisitan · Evidence policy · Suggest a correction