We performed a comparison between Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management and Planview Portfolios based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of this solution are its customizability, and flexibility in the configuration."
"The taxonomy support across all the phases is the most advantageous feature."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It takes two to three days to set up the environment. One person was able to handle the implementation."
"Enterprise One provides end-to-end work management for the full spectrum of types of work in one tool. It affects our project management because our project management uses Planview to monitor their daily work. Every night it loads our SAP system and then they monitor the daily work. They use Planview as a full planning and monitoring tool."
"The data is the most valuable because the reporting that we provide out of Planview is priceless when compared to any other tool. The reporting has a variety of reports. It has the capabilities of Power BI. It gives us all these dashboards that we can show to our executive leadership, and they have been very well-received."
"Our transparency is increasing a lot. It is helping us to get people together. There are no dark rooms anymore. In some areas or concepts, we want to add more light to every single concept. That's the big impact that the tool is having. It allows conversations between people."
"We've brought our portfolio altogether. We have had multiple ways of reporting out what our portfolio is, whether it's in Excel, Word, or in different places. We brought all of our projects together in one place. That has worked out well for us. We've been able to manage the work on Gantt charts and our resources better. The big thing for us on research and development is around managing people's time, on which projects they are working on, and how much effort does it take to launch our projects."
"The overall interface is very easy to use. It puts together strategy and execution across all your investments."
"The resource management and assignment features are valuable. The timesheet management is also valuable because that is a requirement for us. So, the ability to see timesheet forecasting and timesheet actual submission from resources has been very useful and valuable to us."
"The financial planning capabilities are very useful. We have integration for an SAP system, and so we load financial data from SAP into Planview for prior months. And then we use the forecasting capabilities to get a complete picture of the cost of a specific project. The financial management is very useful."
"The biggest impact has been the visibility into our IT assets."
"The user experience, the layout and the different technologies behind the presentations are a bit old. These need to be updated. They should focus on web development. It's simply not supporting the current user experience guidelines."
"We would like to see the visualization of assets, as well as artificial intelligence techniques to assist us in making our decisions."
"The product is not great at implementing security frameworks across an end-to-end supply chain."
"Sometimes within the application, when you pull a report, it takes awhile performance-wise for the reports to pull up."
"The solution needs to be better at accepting new ideas for upcoming releases."
"I think the capabilities are there, but it seems difficult for me to even create a report as I am not a Planview technical expert. It is not particularly intuitive. It slows us down in reporting the big picture to management."
"Its support to legacy paying customers is something PlanView is not handling well. We were unable to implement due to lack of professional support by PlanView. "
"Their off-shore support is something new that they're laying out and the team just needed some development in terms of skill and experience."
"The UI needs improvement. The UI should have more possibilities for users who are not specialized in using Planview. At the moment, it is more of a technical UI. I would like it to be an open user UI."
"We are not very happy with the customer service. This is one of our main pain points. It doesn't cover the entirety of customer service, as there are reps who are really great and we've had good experiences. Many times, we've had people give us attitude, there was a delay in the response, or just a lack of interest. This got to the point where if there was a problem, we would rather try to solve it ourselves then call customer support."
"Visualization and reporting areas could use improvements by having canned reports."
Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management is ranked 14th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 3 reviews while Planview Portfolios is ranked 13th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 63 reviews. Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management is rated 7.6, while Planview Portfolios is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management writes "Great taxonomy support but raw business processing should be upgraded". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Planview Portfolios writes "Helps prioritize projects, share the big picture with management, and has a great planning capacity". Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management is most compared with LeanIX, MEGA HOPEX, iServer, BiZZdesign HoriZZon and Avolution ABACUS, whereas Planview Portfolios is most compared with Broadcom Clarity , Planview PPM Pro, LeanIX, Planview ProjectPlace and SAP Portfolio and Project Management. See our Alfabet Enterprise Architecture Management vs. Planview Portfolios report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Architecture 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.
