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."Microsoft Project Server is simple to use."
"Technical support is good."
"It is easily adaptable. In addition, it is easily used on mobile applications."
"One notable positive aspect is its effective project-tracking capabilities."
"The most useful feature of Microsoft Project Server is you can select a function to see the baseline."
"The scheduling feature is the most useful."
"Capacity management and task baselining are the most valuable features of Microsoft Project Server."
"The ability to look at the resource loading is most valuable."
"Scenario comparison is the feature most valuable to us and the reason why we decided to choose HPE PPM over other portfolio management products."
"Micro Focus Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) has a very strong workflow engine."
"It's a very detailed tool. As far as an enterprise is concerned, it gives you the flexibility to manage everything: portfolios, projects, finances, proposals, resources, and time... It takes care of even the minor details that need to be captured. The project management functionality is configured really well within the tool. That stands out."
"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."
"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 check-in, check-out feature makes Microsoft Project Server pretty slow or cumbersome to use."
"Improvements are needed in the technical support process, aiming for a better user experience."
"Collaboration within the tool is lacking when you compare it to online or cloud-based tools."
"It may be considered expensive."
"Microsoft Project Server could improve by making the solution more user-friendly."
"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."
"Stability of the solution is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The solution needs to be much more stable."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes features in PPM don't work as expected, or our users request a new feature. Typically, our partner vendor can deploy those changes. But there have been a few instances when we had to raise it with Micro Focus because it's beyond the ability of our partner vendor. When we raise the issue with Micro Focus, it sometimes takes time because it needs support from other customers using PPM, not just our bank. It goes through a voting system. Other customers need to vote for the feature. The features that get the most votes will possibly be added."
"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."
"The solution can sometimes be a little inflexible and a bit caustic."
"They can make its UI better. Currently, the UI is a bit clunky."
More OpenText Project and portfolio Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Project Server is ranked 5th in Project Portfolio Management with 55 reviews while OpenText Project and portfolio Management is ranked 10th in Project Portfolio Management with 24 reviews. Microsoft Project Server is rated 7.8, 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.