We performed a comparison between Microsoft Project Server and OpenText Project and 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."The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is stable to use, especially since I work with Microsoft for an extended period."
"A single place for all our organisation's project records."
"The ability to track a project's progress using Microsoft Project Server is the most valuable aspect. It depends, especially when managing multiple projects."
"It is well-established, reliable, and compatible."
"It can scale well."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that the tool's reporting is very good."
"The usability is excellent."
"It is easily adaptable. In addition, it is easily used on mobile applications."
"Micro Focus PPM is flexible and easy to use. It's simple to customize and configure workflows."
"It is very important that the platform gives us a single place where we can measure progress toward goals, as we have weekly meetings with the CTO. We present these consolidated overviews and dashboards to him so that he has an overview of all the projects and can see the status of all the problems that we have and we are working on."
"Resource management: The resource management module is very complete and covers most of the time all needs of customers."
"I like the automated calculations, especially on the resource side. When project managers enter their resource requirements into their staffing profiles, they are automatically translated into labor forecast calculations. PPM automates a significant portion of the forecast calculations. Timesheets are also built-in. We automatically process time sheets and bill them accordingly."
"There are so many different pieces of functionality, and we use almost every single piece from deployment to demand, project, resource, and time management."
"I like the ease of customization from an admin perspective. I'm really excited about some of the things that are coming in version 10.0.3 as far as what admins are able to do."
"The data provided by PPM is trusted and is available almost immediately; without trusted data there is very less scope of any tool to be successful."
"The portfolio management and the resource management are the key features."
"The product is difficult to use for complex projects."
"Stability of the solution is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"We need to be able to compare milestones, calls, and other variables regarding the projects we are working on. I have to contract developers to make reports, which is where things get complicated. They need to develop personal and custom fields for us."
"The solution should be made more collaborative."
"I'd like it if we could divide out the project calendars. On one project server, we might follow five projects or more at one time, and we'd like to see all of the items at once so that it becomes a long loop, but one where we can identify different projects in tandem and then focus on which we need to at the time. While I only have visibility into one, I'd like to see several at a time."
"EPM 2010 UI seems a bit dated now that 2016 is available."
"We sometimes need support from the IT department for installing and deploying the Microsoft Project Server. It is not user-friendly, and users cannot install it themselves."
"The user interface looks quite old and needs to be improved."
"We constantly put in requests for some of the things we need. One of those is being able to export just our standard request type to PDF."
"Portfolio scenarios: This is a very powerful feature. However, it’s limited to analyses."
"User interface continues to be poor. The product does not have a similar view in the different modules, e.g., staffing vs financial management, it looks like you are working with a different product and it is not easy to use or intuitive."
"Micro Focus PPM should be less dependent on coding. It could also benefit from some updates to the software architecture. These have been on the roadmap for years now, but they haven't been released."
"I was not involved in the initial setup. I know that the project involved a lot of consulting that took a long time."
"The user interface is very, very old and is missing some functions, such as, for example, re-do, follow, and share functions. The UI is not good."
"We had a couple of issues with stability or performance degradation about a year ago, around the time of the initial rollout. Since then, we've only had two unexpected outages that were quickly resolved."
"Reporting; need to be able to provide fancy reporting out of PPM, way it is done in OBIEE etc."
More OpenText Project and portfolio Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Project Server is ranked 5th in Project Portfolio Management with 56 reviews while OpenText Project and portfolio Management is ranked 10th in Project Portfolio Management with 24 reviews. Microsoft Project Server is rated 8.0, while OpenText Project and portfolio Management is rated 7.8. 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 OpenText Project and portfolio Management writes "Gives management a cohesive place for tracking business strategies and goals, but cosmetic aspects need work". Microsoft Project Server is most compared with Microsoft Project, ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, Planisware, Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management and JIRA Portfolio, whereas OpenText Project and portfolio Management is most compared with Jira, Planview PPM Pro, Smartsheet and Teamwork . See our Microsoft Project Server vs. OpenText Project and 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.