Issue points size planned effort; Everhour keeps planned capacity and tracked time ready for review.
Try with my Linear
$10k of $15k
Hourly
0:00:00
Alejandro Luna0:00:00Kai Nani0:00:00Kai Nani0:00:00Click!
Dave Jung0:00:00Alejandro Luna0:00:00Dave JungThe calculator gives you the number — Everhour takes it from there.
One click and you're timing. Start a timer, add an entry, edit the details. This is exactly how it feels in Everhour.
Set a budget, assign rates, and get alerted before you're over.
Measurement
Track your budget through time or costs
Every report you need — configured your way, always up to date.
Tracked hours flow straight into a polished invoice — no copy-paste, no manual math.
Use this page to compare the size you assigned to a Linear issue with the time people actually spent on the work. The practical outcome is a cleaner review: the issue was smaller than expected, larger than expected, or tracked inconsistently. That review helps a lead adjust the next plan instead of arguing from memory.
Linear estimates work as team-level effort or size values, using scales such as Exponential, Fibonacci, Linear, or T-Shirt. Hours measure elapsed work time recorded against an issue. Points support prioritization and forecasting; hours support cost, capacity, billing, and payroll review. Keep the two side by side, then explain the variance in plain language.
A point is a planning unit. An hour is a measured unit. Treating 1 point as 1 hour makes the review look precise while hiding the real lesson. A 3-point issue that takes 10 hours does not prove that every point equals 3.33 hours. It proves that this issue needs context before the team updates its next estimate.
Useful context includes issue scope, assignee, priority, labels, project, status movement, and the cycle window used for review. A large gap often comes from under-scoped work, late requirement changes, blocked review, or missing time entries. The point value belongs to the estimate conversation; the logged hours belong to the evidence trail.
Start with one issue, not the whole project. Record the estimate value, the tracked hours, the person or people who worked on it, and the date range reviewed. A compact review line can read: "Issue API-214, estimate 5 points, tracked 14.5 hours, completed inside the July cycle window, variance caused by added migration testing."
That format prevents two common mistakes. First, the team avoids converting a whole project into a fake points-to-hours exchange rate. Second, the team separates scope accuracy from tracking discipline. Under-scoped work changes future planning. Unrecorded time changes the tracking process. Those are different fixes.
A one-off comparison is enough when you need to check a single issue, explain a delivery miss, or prepare a quick planning note before the next cycle. It works best for small teams reviewing a short date range with only a few completed issues and clear ownership.
A managed workflow becomes the better fit when estimates, tracked time, capacity, and budgets need a durable record. Everhour Resource Planning gives managers visual timelines, member and project views, weekly capacity, availability gaps, scheduled time off, and planned-vs-actual time comparisons. That turns one project review into a track record for future budgets.
This content is for general information only, may not be fully up to date, and is provided without any warranty or liability.
High Performer
G2
Summer 2026
Best Ease Of Use
Capterra
Summer 2026
Rated in the top time trackers across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius — with consistent praise for ease of use, integrations, and support.
Points should stay separate from hours. Linear estimates represent effort or size, while hours record time actually spent. A team can compare both after work is done, but a fixed conversion rate usually hides the reason behind the gap. Use the comparison to improve scoping, staffing, and tracking discipline.
The best scale is the one the team uses consistently. Linear supports Exponential, Fibonacci, Linear, and T-Shirt estimate scales, including extended values. A review stays useful when the team keeps the same scale for comparable work and explains outliers instead of switching scales to make old estimates look cleaner.
A gap shows that the original size estimate and the recorded work time diverged. The cause matters more than the gap itself. Added scope, unclear requirements, review delays, unfamiliar code, or missing time entries all create different follow-up actions. Write the reason next to the issue before changing the next plan.
Cycle reviews should use both when the team cares about planning accuracy and capacity. Points show planned effort and completed scope. Hours show the time people spent during the date range aligned to that cycle window. Keeping both visible helps separate delivery flow from workload pressure.
The most damaging mistake is treating points as a universal currency for hours across every person, project, and issue type. A 5-point design task and a 5-point backend task can require different amounts of time. Compare similar work, keep issue context attached, and avoid using one outlier as a permanent rule.
Everhour Resource Planning compares planned capacity with tracked time, using visual timelines plus member and project views. Managers can review capacity, availability gaps, scheduled time off, and actual hours so future Linear issue plans reflect the work the team can realistically take on.
Everhour adds embedded tracking controls through its browser extension, including issue timers, manual logging buttons, estimates, reported time, and a day or week Timesheet button. Synced Linear workspace, project, issue, status, and tag data then stays available for Everhour reports.
Connect Linear work to Everhour Resource Planning so planned capacity, tracked time, availability, and planned-vs-actual comparisons stay visible for better future budgets.
14-day free trial · No credit card · Cancel anytime
