Compare IBM Rational System Architect vs. Planview Enterprise One
IBM Rational System Architect is ranked 14th in Architecture Management with 2 reviews while Planview Enterprise One is ranked 2nd in Architecture Management with 31 reviews. IBM Rational System Architect is rated 6.0, while Planview Enterprise One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational System Architect writes "Modeling is useful, but many features need improvement and technical support is lacking". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Planview Enterprise One writes "Organizes work, provides visibility and accountability". IBM Rational System Architect is most compared with Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, ARIS BPM and SAP PowerDesigner, whereas Planview Enterprise One is most compared with Planview PPM Pro, CA Clarity PPM and Microsoft Project Server. See our IBM Rational System Architect vs. Planview Enterprise One report.
 |
Most Helpful Review | |||
Use IBM Rational System Architect? Share your opinion. |
| ||
 Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational System Architect vs. Planview Enterprise One and other solutions. Updated: January 2020. 397,082 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
We have seen ROI with this solution over the years that we have used it. The user interface is good. It's both clear and comprehensible. It's easy to work with. | We do a lot of big projects which are pretty expensive to structure the product development around and see the progress. Every time we start a project, we have to expense the spends for certain amounts. We need some baselines, like predictive versus actual. The most valuable feature for me is the ease and customizability of reporting. The most valuable feature of this solution is the completeness of the standard, underlying metamodel. It gives us the vast ability to churn out-of-the-box reports and have an overview about approach rates and resource utilization. The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting. The integration stuff from tool to tool, like Projectplace to Planview, to manage projects is the most valuable feature. It keeps all our tasks up-to-date. It closely follows up with everything, which is really cool. The most valuable features are the resource management, the time sheet entry and usage, and the financial planning. With our projects, we primarily focus on resource assignments, as far as determining the actual forecast and actuals of our projects. A lot of it is based off of the resources utilized on those projects. The time based helps us capture the actuals. The amount of time people are spending on working on their project tasks. Because they've built this into the schedule, so we can build the forecast. With financial planning, we're able to look back on what our variance is and if there is anything between the scheduled forecasted hours, dollars against the actual hours, and the costs that they utilize. Our reporting is much better. There is much more visibility on projects, schedules, tasks, and in our milestones. Now, we have a consistent way of reporting out to the committees and getting all of our schedules and milestones. |
Cons | |
This solution can be more user-friendly and easier to use, with better dashboards. There needs to be more information at the outset about how to use the solution and how to deploy it. The deployment process needs improvement. | The technical people are very competent, but there is so much turnover in the people that we talk to, and that's frustrating. They will say, "We can make this work." Suddenly, that guy has left, and we have no one. Then, we have to start all over. I would like to be able to integrate with Oracle to supplement what we're currently doing with reporting. Configuring the UI in the content management system is too elaborate and too time-consuming. 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. Some of the out-of-the-box reporting is not immediately useful and although it can be configured or customized, there are still improvements that can be made. We had issues with the data rephrasing. I would like a bit more flexibility, as far as the configuration, and have additional capabilities to configure, making it more flexible for our use. Sometimes within the application, when you pull a report, it takes awhile performance-wise for the reports to pull up. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
Information Not Available | Our licensing costs are about a quarter of a million dollars per year. Our licensing fees are approximately $50,000 USD annually. With the costs, they were very understanding. Knowing that we were an existing customer, they were very much willing to work with us to make sure that we were able to transition to Enterprise One from PPM Pro. We recently did a new bundle for all of Enterprise One. It includes some of the newer pieces, like Projectplace and LeanKit. It bundled our CTM in with it as well. I think the total came out to be about $900,000 a year. This is for unlimited licenses. In the time that I've used it, we've doubled up the amount of dollars on our intended projects. I think all in we are at $33,000 a year and that includes Projectplace and Planview. We used to have the integration to JIRA, but we don't pay for that anymore. Our licensing costs are probably $150,000 to $180,000 a year with 270 licenses total. I don't think we have necessarily purchased everything that I would have liked to have seen. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Architecture Management solutions are best for your needs. 397,082 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 2,370 Comparisons 1,990 Reviews 2 Average Words per Review 451 Avg. Rating 6.0 | Views 3,854 Comparisons 2,133 Reviews 31 Average Words per Review 899 Avg. Rating 8.1 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 77% of the time.  Compared 4% of the time.  Compared 4% of the time. |  Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| Rational System Architect | Troux |
Learn | |
| IBM | Planview |
Overview | |
| IBM Rational System Architect is an enterprise architecture solution for visualizing, analyzing, and communicating enterprise architecture and business process analysis. This solution provides decision support, process optimization, and integration into solution delivery. Rational System Architect addresses all aspects of your organization's enterprise architecture, including modeling, publishing, analysis, and execution. | Planview Enterprise, Planview's performance management platform, combines project and portfolio management software with adaptive best practices. By integrating the business process management of strategies, services, and projects within a single, Web-based solution, Planview empowers organizations to achieve greater levels of control over their ever-changing environment by dynamically managing money, resources, and capacities. |
Offer | |
Learn more about IBM Rational System Architect | Learn more about Planview Enterprise One |
Sample Customers | |
| Wuxi Lake Cloud, Nationwide, ETI, IDS Scheer | Zurich Insurance Group, Zumbotel Group, Carphone Warehouse |
Top Industries | |
No Data Available | Financial Services Firm25% Insurance Company22% Manufacturing Company13% Healthcare Company13% Software R&D Company14% Government10% Manufacturing Company8% Insurance Company8% |
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational System Architect vs. Planview Enterprise One and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
397,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also IBM Rational System Architect Reviews, Planview Enterprise One Reviews, and our list of Best Architecture Management Companies.
We monitor all 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.