Comparison
This is a difference in direction, not a feature war. Linear is excellent at organising work you have already defined. Nazr generates that work from strategy, so the plan and the backlog are the same thing.
| Nazr | Linear | |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Top-down. Strategy decomposed into work. | Bottom-up. Issues created and grouped. |
| Starting point | Leadership priorities. | Individual tickets. |
| Strategic layer | Built in. Priorities, Workstreams, Tasks. | None. Sits at the execution layer. |
| Role views | Leadership, Product, Engineering over one graph. | Engineering-centric issue tracking. |
| AI role | Generates the decomposition, with human approval. | Assists with existing tickets. |
Most teams reach for an issue tracker because that is where work has always lived. But a tracker starts at the ticket. It assumes someone upstream has already decided what should be built and why, then hands down a list. That assumption is exactly what has broken now that AI has collapsed the cost of writing code. The work can be produced faster than the organisation can decide what the work should be.
Nazr starts one level up. You set priorities, and the system decomposes them into workstreams and ready-to-do tasks, with a human approving each layer. What teams discover lower down surfaces back up, so leadership sees reality rather than the original plan. Linear is a fine home for tasks once they exist. Nazr is where those tasks come from.
Linear organises the work. Nazr decides what the work should be.