We analyzed real evaluation conversations comparing Jellyfish and DX.
Here's why leading engineering teams chose DX over Jellyfish to measure, understand, and improve developer productivity across their organizations.
Get a personalized walkthrough of DX
Over 400+ companies have chosen DX
What we heard from teams evaluating both tools
Too much data, not enough insight
Jellyfish surfaces data without clear next steps. DX's built-in workflows and recommendations turn metrics into action.
Leadership-only vs. org-wide adoption
Jellyfish stays at the leadership layer. DX is used across all levels—from VPs to platform teams to managers.
Inconsistent and hard-to-trust metrics
Jellyfish data needs manual validation before it can be used. DX exposes the underlying SQL so teams know what they're measuring.
Pain points with Jellyfish
Consistent themes from dozens of evaluations.
Data overload, no insight
“We have a wealth of data, but don’t know what to do with it.”
Jellyfish shows data without context or prioritization, leaving teams to interpret everything manually.
Leadership-only adoption
“Managers aren’t using it... adoption across engineering has been poor.”
Seen as a reporting tool for executives, not something useful for managers or platform teams.
Rigid configuration
“I can’t reorder dashboards; everything’s inconsistent.”
Dashboards are locked down and can’t be broken down by diverse groups, such as levels, geography, developer type, and tech stack.
Data trust issues
“Numbers are wonky.”
Integrations often break or produce inconsistent results, forcing teams to validate data in Jira and GitHub.
Low transparency
“Some of the data doesn’t make sense — it’s hard to understand how certain metrics are calculated.”
Black-box scoring erodes confidence; no clear formula or benchmark context.
Poor user experience
“Bloated, too many clicks, hard to navigate.”
The interface is clunky, slow, and disconnected from where teams actually work like Slack and GitHub.
DX named #1 in Software Development Analytics Tools Grid
Why teams ultimately chose DX
What stood out in real customer evaluations.
Actionable insights
“You didn’t just give me data—you told me what to do with it.”
DX bridges insight to action with built-in triage workflows and research-backed playbooks—something Jellyfish doesn’t offer.
Customization and control
“Attributes, SQL access, and custom views—this is what we need.”
DX gives teams full control: direct SQL access, custom views, and single-tenant data storage. Jellyfish is closed and inflexible.
Team-wide adoption
“Engineers can actually see their results and discuss them.”
Transparency by default; participation > 90%. Drives cultural engagement Jellyfish can’t.
Mixed-methods measurement
“Jellyfish’s surveys are limited and have low engagement.”
DX combines system metrics with qualitative feedback for a complete picture. Jellyfish’s surveys are limited and low-engagement.
Research-backed framework
“We’ve been looking for a more opinionated platform.”
DX Core 4, built from DORA + SPACE + DevEx research, provides credible structure for metrics.
Connector velocity
“You’re adding new tools every week.”
DX rapidly integrates data connectors; Jellyfish lags months behind.
Proactive alerts
“I can create a Slack channel that pushes the exact alerts my team needs to see.”
DX delivers weekly Slack + AI summaries that highlight key changes. Jellyfish offers static dashboards only.
DX Customers