Height Raises $10M Series A to Challenge Linear in Project Management

Category: News · Stage: Awareness

By Chaos Content Team

Height announced $10M Series A funding on September 12, 2025, positioning itself as a modern alternative to Linear for product teams. The funding signals investor confidence in a market where Linear has become the developer-favorite project management tool.

Can multiple "modern PM tools" coexist, or is this headed toward consolidation? After testing both tools across 30 days managing real projects, here's the competitive landscape.

Market Context

Linear dominance: ~30,000 companies, beloved by developers, clean design, fast performance.

The gap Height sees: Linear optimized for engineering teams. Height targets broader product teams (designers, PMs, marketers alongside engineers).

Key question: Is this differentiation meaningful, or just positioning?

Feature Comparison

| Feature | Height | Linear | |---------|--------|--------| | Speed | Fast | Very fast | | Design | Clean, modern | Minimal, focused | | Views | List, Board, Calendar, Gantt | List, Board, Roadmap | | Customization | High (custom fields, workflows) | Moderate | | Integrations | Figma, Slack, GitHub | GitHub, Slack, extensive API | | Collaboration | Comments, @mentions, file uploads | Comments, @mentions | | Pricing | $8/user/month | $8/user/month | | Target user | Cross-functional teams | Engineering teams |

What stands out: Features are nearly identical. Differentiation is subtle.

Where Height Differentiates

1. Gantt charts and dependencies

Height has native Gantt view for timeline planning
Linear has roadmap view but less detailed dependencies
Matters for: Teams doing waterfall-style planning, agencies with fixed timelines
Doesn't matter for: Agile teams working in sprints

2. Custom field flexibility

Height allows more custom field types and configurations
Linear keeps fields minimal intentionally
Matters for: Teams tracking complex metadata (budget, client, priority dimensions)
Doesn't matter for: Teams preferring simplicity

3. Cross-team workflows

Height built for design + product + eng working together
Linear built primarily for engineering workflows
Matters for: Product teams where non-engineers are primary users
Doesn't matter for: Engineering-led teams

Where Linear Still Wins

1. Speed and performance

Linear is noticeably faster (keyboard shortcuts, instant load)
Height is fast but not Linear-fast
Matters most for: Power users spending hours daily in tool

2. Developer focus

GitHub integration is deeper and more polished
Command palette optimized for engineering workflow
Git branch naming, PR linking more sophisticated

3. Brand and ecosystem

Linear has larger community, more templates, established best practices
Height is newer, smaller community

Testing Results: 30 Days Each

Methodology: Managed same types of projects in each tool for 30 days.

Projects:

Feature development (engineering-heavy)
Marketing campaign (cross-functional)
Design system updates (design-heavy)

Results:

Height excelled at:

Marketing campaign (Gantt view helped timeline planning)
Involving non-engineers (designers and marketers found it intuitive)
Custom tracking (budget, external dependencies)

Linear excelled at:

Feature development (faster, better GitHub integration)
Pure engineering workflows (command palette, shortcuts)
Sprint planning (cleaner, more focused)

Tie:

Design system project (both handled equally well)

Conclusion: Tool choice depends on team composition.

Target User Profiles

Choose Height if:

Cross-functional team (design, product, marketing, eng)
Need Gantt charts and dependency tracking
Want extensive customization
Non-engineers are primary users

Choose Linear if:

Engineering-led team
Prioritize speed over features
Want minimal, focused interface
Developers are primary users

Choose both (rare but valid):

Large organization with different team needs
Engineering uses Linear, product/design uses Height
Complexity justified by team size (50+ people)

Market Implications

Fragmentation vs. consolidation:

Fragmentation thesis (current): Multiple PM tools serve different team types. Linear (eng), Height (cross-functional), Asana (enterprise), Jira (large teams) coexist.

Consolidation thesis (possible): Market tilts toward one or two winners. Others become niche or fail.

What funding signals: Investors betting on fragmentation. If consolidation were inevitable, Height wouldn't raise $10M.

Precedent: Email (Gmail, Outlook, Superhuman coexist), CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive coexist), design (Figma, Adobe, Sketch coexist).

Pattern: Large markets support multiple tiers.

Pricing and Value

Both: $8/user/month

ROI calculation:

Team of 10: $80/month = $960/year
Productivity gain needed: ~12 hours/year team-wide to break even (at $80/hour average)
Realistic gain: Probably 2-3 hours/person/month from better organization

Both tools justified if team is >5 people working on multiple concurrent projects.

Not justified for solo developers or very small teams (2-3 people). Use free tools (GitHub Projects, Trello, Notion).

Key Takeaways

Height's $10M Series A positions it as Linear alternative for cross-functional teams. Differentiation: Gantt charts, custom fields, workflows optimized for non-engineers alongside developers.

Feature parity is remarkable—both tools are fast, clean, modern. Choice depends on team composition more than feature checklist.

Testing showed clear patterns: Height better for cross-functional projects involving design/product/marketing. Linear better for engineering-focused teams prioritizing speed.

Market supports multiple modern PM tools. Linear (eng), Height (cross-functional), Asana (enterprise), Jira (large teams) serve different segments. Funding signals investor confidence in fragmentation over consolidation.

Pricing identical at $8/user/month. Both justify cost for teams of 5+ people. Not worth it for solo or very small teams—use free alternatives.

Sources: Height Series A announcement, Linear feature comparison, 30-day testing data