We performed a comparison between Microsoft Project Server and Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Project Portfolio Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Resource allocation is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Project Server."
"It is a scalable solution. We have been able to manage larger scale projects easily using this solution."
"The most useful feature of Microsoft Project Server is you can select a function to see the baseline."
"We use the tool in our IT-related projects. All IT efforts are managed using the Microsoft Project Server. Every week, we have a project status meeting where we demonstrate the project's status using the tool. We track tasks and progress, assign owners, and monitor milestones and all project-related work using it."
"I like being able to manage the capacity in terms of the resources. I also like being able to share documents and information between teams. It's the best solution for collaboration."
"The solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The scheduling and the customization are very powerful."
"The solution's tech support is good."
"Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is a well-engineered product from an IT perspective."
"The ability to streamline the process of obtaining signatures from our contractors is valuable."
"I like Primavera's planning capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is accuracy."
"The solution could improve the ease of access could improve. It can be time-consuming."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The solution should be made more collaborative."
"The user interface looks quite old and needs to be improved."
"The solution's synchronization with Jira Projects should be improved."
"We want to expand to the local level where we lack strong IT expertise, we are considering making it more user-friendly."
"The price of the product must be improved."
"It appears that Microsoft's primary goal is to migrate as much functionality as possible from the legacy on-premises Microsoft Project Server to the new cloud-based Power Apps solution."
"The scalability has room for improvement."
"They should work on integrating the solution with ERP."
"The solution's user interface is an area with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The reporting could improve project management. We need multiple source reports. If someone is new to the support it has a steep learning curve."
"Primavera could be better integrated with other products, and it needs more cost management features."
More Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Project Server is ranked 5th in Project Portfolio Management with 56 reviews while Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is ranked 11th in Project Portfolio Management with 6 reviews. Microsoft Project Server is rated 8.0, while Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Project Server writes "Provides holistic reporting and allows us to keep track of what's going on with projects". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management writes "It helps us track progress and results". Microsoft Project Server is most compared with Microsoft Project, ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, Planisware, JIRA Portfolio and Broadcom Clarity , whereas Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management is most compared with EcoSys, JIRA Portfolio, Broadcom Clarity , LoadSpring SpringBoard Cloud Portal and Artemis Enterprise. See our Microsoft Project Server vs. Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management report.
See our list of best Project Portfolio Management vendors.
We monitor all Project Portfolio Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.