Thanks @Lucas1, I agree with the two feature requests and have voted. (Timestamp 1:25) may help sharing this vid with them in some cases in the mean time. https://youtu.be/vSsBjt9di5o
The work around here is to do an individual timelog for each item per person (as a sub item), with a different date for each timelog. You can automate the person assignment to creator, the date column to set date to today, and the status to done (so it doesn’t show up in My Work after you check the box to hide completed items there)
We are having the same experience. We have an Enterprise 200 seat WM, 50 seat CRM license and are constantly revisiting this discussion also.
2 Likes
Same here! Workarounds to workarounds to workarounds in our designs.
5 Likes
I completely agree with the statements above. Our organization has been utilizing Monday.com for approximately 3–4 years. During this time, I have frequently lurked in these forums and have seen the release of numerous great new features, many of which have significantly enhanced the platform’s core functionality. However, it is disappointing that a seemingly fundamental feature, such as combining two date values into a timeline, requires reliance on a third-party application.
As an IT professional, I have worked extensively to extend the functionality of our Monday.com environment. By leveraging Make.com integrations, we have implemented over 100 scenarios aimed at addressing limitations in the platform’s native capabilities. These include relatively straightforward automations, such as updating an item’s name based on changes in a mirror column and vice-versa synchronizing the names of linked items when one is updated.
Despite these enhancements, the increasing dependence on third-party integrations introduces considerable challenges. These include heightened security vulnerabilities and operational risks associated with potential disruptions—such as API-breaking changes or outages on the part of third-party providers. While tools like Make.com can be invaluable for extending niche functionality, they should not be necessary for what should be considered core features of the platform.
This raises an important question: What defines core functionality versus niche functionality? I believe HDurey made a compelling argument in their post regarding the establishment of a development advisory group composed of advanced users. Such a group could provide critical insights from the client perspective, helping to prioritize which features are most needed as part of the platform’s foundational capabilities.
While the existing feature request and voting system offers a degree of user-driven development input, it can sometimes amplify the loudest voices rather than the most broadly impactful needs. A more structured approach to understanding and addressing these priorities could significantly enhance the platform’s ability to meet the expectations of its users.
7 Likes
I completely agree. A lot of the simple integrations that are publicly available seem so simple that they should be included as an automation out of the box. Right now we have had our internal development team put together some for ourselves just to save on long term monthly costs. Some of them are literally 15 lines of code. The most basic simple example of this is having the ability to assign the person that changed the status of a task automatically task when they change the status to something. How is that not a basic functionality. Like I said it was 15 lines of code OR a $4/month “upgrade”
6 Likes
Hi, @OmerK. Thank you very much for replying here! I appreciate your acknowledgement of this feedback.
Just want to reply to a few specific points you shared.
I want to believe you—but if that’s really the case, Monday’s support agents need to be given some constructive feedback about the language they use when interacting with customers about missing desired functionality. They regularly position a third-party app as the solution—without making any acknowledgment of the feature request at the core (or any empathizing agreement that it would be useful), without mentioning the product roadmap or whether that feature exists on it, without offering to submit anything helpful on their end, and often without even directing folks to the feature request forums.
I have plenty of other constructive feedback about the standards to which Monday support agents are held; I’m only bringing up this particular behavior because it’s directly relevant to this conversation. The way in which stuff is communicated to the customer matters more in forming that customer’s perception than the way things may actually work behind the scenes.
Of course! I’m aware that’s how product development/management works, and that every decision comes with tradeoffs that often aren’t obvious from the outside (though it was still worth spelling out for onlookers.)
With that in mind, I implore you to make your development roadmap more transparent. I understand the pitfalls of full transparency—the many circumstances that impact a feature’s release timeline change constantly, and I agree that it’s best to avoid setting hard customer expectations you’re not 100% sure can be met. But you could have a customer-facing version, tied to the internal one, that either doesn’t provide specific dates at all, or pads all expected release dates with large margins of error so you have the opportunity to surprise and delight by launching ‘early’.
An even better approach I’ve seen employed by other comparably-scaled SaaS companies is to engage the user community in some of the prioritization decisions. You could have a live ‘feature request leaderboard’ that lets users rank the features you’re considering, relative to one another. Yes, you have this forum where people can upvote requests, but that doesn’t address the tradeoffs we know come with focusing on one feature over another. Having users put them in order of priority would give you better, more granular data to drive your internal decisions, and it would make your customers feel more included and respected—plus, it would subtly help more customers understand the reality that prioritizing one thing often requires deprioritizing another.
Or you could take a page from Zapier’s playbook and create an ‘early access program’ with a Slack community (power users), where PMs and devs hang out alongside users—and often pop in with polls asking users to vote on which of two features under consideration they think are more important, or to describe how they’d expect a feature called {XYZ} to work. That’s a much lighter lift to set up and maintain than the leaderboard ranking I suggested above, but it’d still be a huge step in the right direction when it comes to making users feel like their needs matter when it comes to roadmap decisions. You could require users to apply to be a part of that community (and agree to its acceptable use terms), and accept some subset of those applicants—rather than letting users add themselves—if you’re worried about the scale becoming unmanageable.
Thank you!
I’d be happy to extrapolate on any of those feature desires I listed and their applicable use cases, or to talk through some other big ones (the ones I listed were just off the top of my head) here, or in a user interview, if that would help the case at all.
Thanks again for your time and attention. (And I’ll thank you even more if you end up actioning any of these suggestions!)
6 Likes
You left out the fact they now charge more for CRM while the CRM still doesn’t work like other CRMs
- annual goal widget has been broken for years
- the funnel view doesn’t look like a funnel and filters weirdly
Then you have the massively limited forms feature which can’t reference other boards even with a mirror column (also that is the most frustratingly way to execute synced data).
I love Monday. I was an early user when it was da pulse. The layout works for my brain. But I now have a startup and the costs are starting to get out of control for things that should be basic.
Tons of third party apps do not maintain soc2 compliance which we do- and our clients require which means I cannot use those apps to make Monday complete- nor should I have to.
6 Likes
I could not agree more. It has become really disappointing and I feel like Monday doesn’t fully grasp that many of us cannot purchase the third party applications.
3 Likes
Hey @arf, thank you so much for sharing your detailed feedback and thoughtful suggestions! We genuinely appreciate the time you took to share your perspective.
Your points about communication style, transparency, and fostering more community involvement in prioritization are incredibly valuable. We’ve noted everything you’ve shared and will make sure it’s passed along to the relevant teams for consideration.
Thank you again for engaging with us - we truly value your input!
2 Likes
I want to second everything being said here by @arf AlexR-F.
3 Likes
As a government entity using Monday for many internal and external facing applications we are extremely limited in our ability to use external apps and need the desired functions cooked into the native Monday application (like map markers that actually sit on the exact geographic location - an not the nearest street address - as there are none on a volcano).
2 Likes
You left out the fact they now charge more for CRM while the CRM still doesn’t work like other CRMs
- annual goal widget has been broken for years
- the funnel view doesn’t look like a funnel and filters weirdly
Then you have the massively limited forms feature which can’t reference other boards even with a mirror column (also that is the most frustratingly way to execute synced data).
I love Monday. I was an early user when it was da pulse. The layout works for my brain. But I now have a startup and the costs are starting to get out of control for things that should be basic.
Tons of third party apps do not maintain soc2 compliance which we do- and our clients require which means I cannot use those apps to make Monday complete- nor should I have to.
2 Likes
Fully agree here -
This one really affects us:
- Inability to assign someone to a subitem without giving them access/visibility to its parent task too
We were looking for a single field (hours) to appear in the top level of the My Work page. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the my work page is not customizable to any needed level so the developer assistant to our sales exec recommended creating a custom dynamic my work page. However, that comes with two major issues - first, like you mentioned, the subtask inherits the task and therefore each time someone logs into this dynamic My Work substitution page, the first team they see are tasks NOT assigned to them (since they own the sub task). Add to that, the sacrifice of being able to very easily switch between users, and though we gain the hours, by taking the developer suggestion, we lose two other critical features.
2 Likes
Thanks for voicing your agreement, @TryingtoGetmdctoWork !
I think I’m following you, but I may be misunderstanding. Assuming I am understanding your obstacle correctly, I wanted to make sure you’re aware of the ability to use the dynamic “me” assignment, and the subitem-specific people column, as a filter criterion.
You can have a View with a filter that only displays items with at least one subitem assigned to the employee (and it adapts to whichever employee is looking at that View):
The result: the parent items—which I know are NOT assigned to the employee in question—will still appear in the View (no way around that part, AFAIK), but only the ones that actually have at least one subitem assigned to that employee. And when they expand the parent item, it only shows the specific subitem(s) assigned to that employee; the subitems assigned to others do not appear.
I’m guessing you already knew about that, but I’d hate to think you might be missing out on an existing feature that could fractionally improve your workflow, so wanted to share just in case. 
Reading through this thread, a lot of it resonates. And I’ve seen the same kind of struggle when working on other platforms / ecosystems in the past.
There is an easily overlooked factor though: If monday had the sort of more sophisticated and abstract underlying data structures to enable many of the things being requested here, it’s likely that would serve as a greater obstacle to monday’s adoption and growth.
There are hundreds, at least, of competitors in this very busy category of software, with monday growing faster than almost all of them. So the frustrating thing as a sophisticated user… is that the monday product designers probably have done a pretty great job choosing how much functionality to put in the box. It’s just less than us sophisticated users want.
1 Like
@kylecordes That’s true: as discussed earlier in the thread, effective product management involves assessing and comparing tons of factors and dependencies, and deciding on what needs to go onto the back burner to allow focus on the features/fixes that will have the biggest positive impact in whatever area the company is prioritizing at the time (existing user satisfaction? new user attraction? etc.)
And you’re right that power users like us, by nature, push the limitations of the platform. But I still argue that at least a subset of the limitations listed in this thread are not power-user specific, and are already available in Monday’s competing SaaS tools. And while prospective customers are—or should be—doing their due diligence while trying out the demo environment, there are so many little niche things they might need that they’re just not going to remember to check for proactively during the trial period. It’s often only after they’ve signed the contract and started building out their infrastructure that they start hitting those obstacles. And given how frequently that seems to happen—and how often it seems the sales reps mislead potential customers for the sake of making their sale, a practice I’ve witnessed personally—it’s hard not to see it as a borderline-deceptive part of Monday’s business strategy.
1 Like
It has completely kicked off in here.
It’s 2025, just use no-code tools like make.com and AI, all your problems will be solved, and gaps filled.
Yes, but that’s not the point.
It is 2025, and I actually run my own company specializing in using no/low-code automation platforms to improve business processes.
To clarify, the purpose of my post was not to get help finding a solution or workaround for any particular issue. It was:
-
To warn potential adopters that they should mentally add a big grain of salt to their sales rep’s “Yeah, it can totally do that!” functionality promises, and to be prepared to supplement Monday with third-party tools, like marketplace apps or external automation platforms. (If they know that going into it, they can at least plan and budget accordingly.)
-
To provide feedback to the Monday team about their product development process (it should be more transparent, and users should be more directly engaged in influencing feature prioritization decisions), the accuracy and integrity standards to which their sales reps are held, and the language used by their support agents in response to questions about features not yet natively available. I also think it’s important that they’re aware of the distrust and general negative impression they’re inadvertently fueling for many of their users by not addressing those improvement opportunities.
Anyway, thanks for sharing that link to the custom Monday GPT—I’m sure that’ll be helpful for some onlookers here!
P.S. I’d recommend Zapier over Make any day (especially for less-technical folks.)
3 Likes
Zapier could be better…
- Its quite expensive for what it does
- UI isn’t great
- Impossible to fully check your runs
Some good alternatives to Zapier are:
[make]
[n8n]
Both are great no-code tools.
make needs less technical ability vs n8n.
Let me know if you need any help with make.