We performed a comparison between JIRA Portfolio 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."The solution's tracking capabilities helped ensure we had full visibility into planned work and scheduled work."
"Portfolio's most valuable features are that it's user-friendly and customer-centric."
"The valuable features of the JIRA Portfolio are the customization it provides which is very useful and the Agile project management capability."
"Having an option to view dependencies between projects and teams is great."
"The most valuable features of Jira are the dashboards where we see all the features lined up with the release dates in the portfolio view, it is very good."
"Jira's Structure, agile, and Kanban boards are helpful. I also like JQuery, which allows you to fetch the relevant set of data. We use JQuery, JQL, and the Structure board a lot. Kanban boards help us monitor daily tasks, and we review the progress using the burndown charts."
"The dashboard is the most valuable feature. The user experience is very good, it's easy to use."
"JIRA Portfolio has many wonderful features."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 kanban board could also use some more filters. We just had a project where the deployment for Jira didn't have any ETA, and it's a requirement for the client. We accommodate a lot of issues on the board, so the workaround was to create boards by project, not client."
"Some key features like integration, big data warehousing and data modeling need work."
"Our major team does not control or manage JIRA server well since sometimes there is trouble using the solution, which is a problem. The solution's speed needs to be improved."
"With Jira, an issue that arises is the length of time it takes to show certain data."
"I think that front-end development is a little bit buggy in some cases. Some of the features take a while to respond and some need to be more clear."
"Currently lacks AWS integration."
"I think the solution can improve in graphs and the analysis part."
"JIRA Portfolio could improve new implementation because if I want integration for the complete wide frame tools it cannot provide any wide frame tools."
"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."
"Expense management, simulation scenarios, and budget control could be great and useful features to include."
"This solution needs more standard connectors to other solutions."
"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."
JIRA Portfolio is ranked 4th in Enterprise Agile Planning Tools with 47 reviews while Planview Daptiv is ranked 12th in Project Portfolio Management with 12 reviews. JIRA Portfolio is rated 8.2, while Planview Daptiv is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of JIRA Portfolio writes "Powerful, flexible solution with a bit of a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Planview Daptiv writes "Useful project management capabilities, beneficial dashboards, but project planning could improve". JIRA Portfolio is most compared with Jira Align, Oracle Primavera Portfolio Management, Microsoft Project Server, Adobe Workfront and Microsoft Azure DevOps, whereas Planview Daptiv is most compared with Broadcom Clarity . See our JIRA Portfolio vs. Planview Daptiv 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.