Zenhub vs Taiga:
GitHub planning, hosted limits and self-hosting.
Compare Zenhub and Taiga for GitHub-centred engineering planning, cross-functional agile work, hosted capacity and the responsibilities of self-hosting.
Locate the work records.
Choose who operates the system.
Zenhub is a strong shortlist when engineering issues and pull requests already live in GitHub and planning should follow that work. Taiga is relevant for a standalone agile workspace or a self-hosted open-source deployment. Compare the repository/issue scope with project/storage scope rather than treating both free plans as equal. The important decision is where the authoritative work record lives and who maintains the service.
Seven differences that change the shortlist
| Buying question | Zenhub | Taiga |
|---|---|---|
| Work record | Connects GitHub issues and pull requests with engineering planning | Independent agile workspace for a cross-functional team |
| Planning tools | Boards, hierarchy, roadmaps, sprints and estimation | Scrum/Kanban planning and team progress coordination |
| Hosted Free scope | One workspace, two connected repositories and 250 issues | One public plus one private project and 10 MB storage |
| User boundary | Free and Teams table lists up to 50 users | Hosted Free lists unlimited users |
| Integration emphasis | GitHub integration and extension, with Slack issue work | Verify required source-control handover and integrations for the actual deployment |
| Reporting and AI | Delivery reports; AI and advanced reporting are package-dependent | Assess the needed agile reports and avoid assuming Zenhub AI/reporting parity |
| Deployment choice | Cloud offers and an Enterprise Server/on-premise route | Hosted plans, quoted managed deployments and open-source self-hosting |
Four worked buying briefs
These are hypothetical scenarios with explicit assumptions. They do not establish equal capabilities, measured usability or a negotiated price.
| Buying brief | Zenhub | Taiga |
|---|---|---|
| Eight developers work in two GitHub repositories | Connect the repositories and check the Free issue cap against the real backlog. | Define whether issues remain in GitHub or move into Taiga and how status stays consistent. |
| An agency includes nontechnical client stakeholders | Verify non-GitHub stakeholder access and the retained package before inviting clients. | Define private-project roles and the visibility of comments, attachments and activity. |
| A team attaches design files to every story | Check the plan’s issue/repository capacity and the intended attachment workflow. | Measure the working files against Free’s 10 MB hosted storage, then choose appropriate capacity. |
| An organisation requires its own deployment | Request Enterprise Server scope, infrastructure requirements and support terms. | Choose community self-hosting or a quoted supported deployment and assign an operator. |
Eight developers work in two GitHub repositories
Can planning follow the existing source of work?
Zenhub: Connect the repositories and check the Free issue cap against the real backlog.
Taiga: Define whether issues remain in GitHub or move into Taiga and how status stays consistent.
Assume 220 existing issues plus new monthly intake. Two repositories fitting a free cap does not mean the whole backlog will continue fitting over time.
An agency includes nontechnical client stakeholders
Who needs to see or change private work?
Zenhub: Verify non-GitHub stakeholder access and the retained package before inviting clients.
Taiga: Define private-project roles and the visibility of comments, attachments and activity.
Assume two clients who must not see each other’s work. Demonstrate the invitation and removal process using sample data before migrating live projects.
A team attaches design files to every story
Which resource limit arrives first?
Zenhub: Check the plan’s issue/repository capacity and the intended attachment workflow.
Taiga: Measure the working files against Free’s 10 MB hosted storage, then choose appropriate capacity.
Assume a small number of large files rather than thousands of stories. An unlimited-user label says nothing about how many attachments or projects can be retained.
An organisation requires its own deployment
Who owns service maintenance?
Zenhub: Request Enterprise Server scope, infrastructure requirements and support terms.
Taiga: Choose community self-hosting or a quoted supported deployment and assign an operator.
Assume an update, a failed worker and a backup restoration. Require an ownership plan and recovery objective; an open-source licence does not supply operational staff.
Decide which system owns engineering status
List the identifiers used in daily work: repository, issue, pull request, story, sprint and release. Mark which system is authoritative for each one. A GitHub-centred team may want status and estimates to follow engineering activity without copying its backlog; a mixed team may prefer a standalone agile workspace with a deliberate source-control handover. Zenhub’s GitHub connection and Taiga’s independent project model lead to different integration questions.
Propose one issue that is split into subtasks, moved between teams and completed by a pull request. Check who sees the change and whether a second manual status update is required. Include a stakeholder without repository access and a departing contractor. Ask for the exact retained package and permissions involved. The acceptance record should explain the remaining manual handovers rather than reducing the decision to which product has a board or sprint button.
Separate application capacity from service ownership
Forecast the resources each plan actually counts. Zenhub’s Free allowance constrains repositories and issues; Taiga’s hosted Free allowance constrains projects and storage while advertising unlimited users. A growing engineering backlog and a document-heavy client project can reach different limits at similar team sizes. Include archived work and files in the forecast, using the vendor’s treatment of each rather than assuming that closing a story removes it from every allowance.
For self-hosting, name the person responsible for deployment, identity, email, backups, monitoring and upgrades, and agree a recovery exercise before production use. Taiga’s open-source route and supported deployments are distinct operating arrangements; Zenhub also advertises an Enterprise Server route that needs its own scope. Compare the annual service responsibility and required support alongside the licence. Free software access can be useful without making the infrastructure, migration or operational recovery free.
Questions before you choose
Is Zenhub Free unlimited because it allows up to 50 users?
No. Its current table also lists one workspace, two repositories and 250 issues. Verify every applicable resource boundary.
Does Taiga Free include unlimited private projects?
No. Its current hosted Free plan lists one public and one private project with 10 MB storage, despite unlimited users.
Is self-hosted Taiga the same service as Taiga Private Cloud?
No. Community self-hosting makes the operator responsible for the installation. Taiga Private Cloud is a separately quoted vendor-managed deployment.
Which is better for a team already using GitHub?
Zenhub directly targets that workflow, but evaluate repository scope, stakeholder access and required reports. Taiga may still fit a standalone agile process if the integration and ownership requirements are satisfied.
Turn the comparison into your own evaluation
Use the same criteria and priorities for both products, keep unknowns unassessed and record the plan and evidence behind your ratings.
Build a Zenhub vs Taiga scorecard →Keep the assumptions with the figures
Use the date, billing cycle, units and limits with each example. Check current account terms before purchasing. Unverified prices and model costs stay unpriced.
Download the buying examples as JSON ↓Share the comparison
Use these examples when discussing the shortlist with your team.