We performed a comparison between Microsoft Project Server and Planview Daptiv 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."This is a scalable solution. It is easy to set up and to add clusters to your environment."
"Microsoft Project Server is easy to use compared to other similar solutions, such as Primavera. It functions similar to Excel or others Microsoft solutions which makes it simple for most people to be able to use right away."
"The usability is excellent."
"The ability to track a project's progress using Microsoft Project Server is the most valuable aspect. It depends, especially when managing multiple projects."
"The key things are managing interactions, resource allocation, resource-leveling (enterprise) and as a collaborative tool, because we use it across multiple projects at a time."
"Microsoft Project Server is a scalable solution."
"Technical support is very responsive - particularly on critical tickets."
"The solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect."
"Changepoint gives us a view of the project status and needs very clearly, which are things that we used to miss with MS Project and Excel."
"The powerful collaboration is definitely the most valuable and the fact that you can adjust flexibility to almost any methodology, and the easy creation of complete new functionalities without programming code."
"It's difficult to pinpoint just one most valuable feature, as there are many features that can be beneficial. For the specific use case of my client's project management office, they found the project management features of the application to be particularly valuable, such as project boards, reporting, and the ability to customize views. Additionally, task management and project scheduling were also highly utilized. However, capacity planning was not used as much as the others, as there was a lack of support from executives to invest in training and implementing it due to a lack of processes in place. The project planning features, dashboard, and reporting capabilities were considered the most valuable."
"I like the reporting engine, IBM Cognos, especially the analytics. That's a good tool. It's quite strong on the ideation and capacity-planning side, which is a huge plus."
"The timekeeping features are great and very helpful."
"When a lot of users logged onto the site, it took a big toll on the service. Therefore, there is a scalability issue."
"The price of the product must be improved."
"The initial setup was complex."
"It is not updated in real-time. Sometimes it, therefore, is not accurate."
"It has to be more user-friendly. For instance, there should be some assistance, like when you go to certain sites, people pop up and say, "Can we help you? What are you looking for?" It's not interactive enough."
"It needs to be more collaborative from inside the application. It only does project scheduling for me. It would be good if it could do other things and be more collaborative, such as sharing tasks for users. It is not really incorporated into MS Office, so you can't copy-paste stuff. It is on its own, doing its own thing. It is only used for scheduling, and it doesn't work well with anything else."
"Resource management has room for improvement because it uses a lot of resources."
"The product's UI is not very user-friendly."
"It would also be nice to see some improvements on the IBM Cognos Analytics. There's still work to be done on the analytics side of things, like your condition formality."
"The areas that should be improved in Planview Daptiv are a subject that can be viewed differently depending on who you ask. I feel they should focus on excelling in one specific area rather than providing average capabilities in many areas. For example, their project planning software is satisfactory but not as advanced as Microsoft Projects. The same goes for the capacity planning tool and reporting capabilities, which can be improved upon by using custom Excel spreadsheets or by hiring a business analyst for additional support. In short, the biggest weakness of Daptiv is that it does not excel in any one area and only provides average performance."
"I find the solution has an excessive amount of features. Many aren't even kept current. Some aren't useful at all. There's an overall lack of coherence within the solution. It can make the execution difficult. Many features can easily be eliminated and it would help streamline the solution. They should get rid of 80% of the features and then really focus on the leftover 20% to make it a really great product."
"Expense management, simulation scenarios, and budget control could be great and useful features to include."
"This solution needs more standard connectors to other solutions."
Microsoft Project Server is ranked 6th in Project Portfolio Management with 55 reviews while Planview Daptiv is ranked 12th in Project Portfolio Management with 12 reviews. Microsoft Project Server is rated 7.8, while Planview Daptiv is rated 8.2. 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 Planview Daptiv writes "Useful project management capabilities, beneficial dashboards, but project planning could improve". Microsoft Project Server is most compared with Microsoft Project, ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management, Planisware, Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management and JIRA Portfolio, whereas Planview Daptiv is most compared with Broadcom Clarity . See our Microsoft Project Server vs. Planview Daptiv report.
See our list of best Project Portfolio Management vendors and 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.