Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Alfabet FastLane vs Planview PPM Pro comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Alfabet FastLane
Ranking in Project Portfolio Management
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Architecture Management (29th)
Planview PPM Pro
Ranking in Project Portfolio Management
8th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Project Management Software (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Project Portfolio Management category, the mindshare of Alfabet FastLane is 0.6%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Planview PPM Pro is 7.4%, up from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Project Portfolio Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Planview PPM Pro7.4%
Alfabet FastLane0.6%
Other92.0%
Project Portfolio Management
 

Featured Reviews

Onkgopotse Samuel Motshabi - PeerSpot reviewer
A clear view for managing portfolio growth, governance, and cost drivers or containment
I have just started toward the goal of implementation, so don't have much knowledge of the solution beyond my initial training. It is important for any company to define what they want from the solution. For example, one recommendation is that companies pick questions they want answered right at the outset. One company might say they want to know about their application landscape. Another company might say they want to see cost drivers. If you strategically prioritize your questions, then you will be able to go through implementation with less pain. Based on my use so far, I see the potential of the solution. I have been part of the company for a long time so I understand its pain points. I believe the solution is the right tool to get a clear view of governance, cost drivers, and cost containment. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
MartinQuiroga - PeerSpot reviewer
Needs to improve roadmap, scalability and communication
The product feels like a toy. The tool needs to improve its roadmap. It needs to improve things on a project management level which includes communication as well.  I am working with the product for two to three years.  The product is not scalable. We have around 15-20 users for the product.  My…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution has provided us with a view of the truth in terms of our application portfolio."
"The reporting and dashboards are the most valuable features. For most of what we're using it for almost all of it is pretty valuable to us."
"PPM Pro has enabled us to set up and run a project priority committee (PPC) within the organization. Without the PPM Pro tool, we wouldn't be able to have the project information, updates, and project listings in the pipeline to be able to run the meeting efficiently, give information prior to the meeting, and also run the meeting when we meet on either monthly or on a bi-monthly basis."
"Time tracking, portfolio management reporting, and what-if analysis create visibility into project planning, resource capacity, and demand planning."
"It is certainly the resource management feature that is most valuable for us. It is the supply and demand. Like most companies, one of the hardest nuts to crack is understanding where your people are and getting them to do the right thing at the right time. So, certainly, out of all the functionality, this has been the saving grace for us because it now provides us with the insight to do future planning and stop taking on more work than we are physically capable of doing as a company."
"Flexibility is the most valuable feature of the solution. We're able to do a lot of integrations with ConnectWise, which is another IT services tool that we use. So, we can integrate with that, and it's pretty flexible. We just went live a couple of weeks ago, but already we're able to bring visibility into our resource utilization and project status with clients."
"PPM Pro absolutely enables us to create reusable project templates that reflect our project management lifecycle. We had a good customer session on this, where a team utilizes portfolio management and project management of the tool very intensively. We follow all of the templates but having said that, we have so many divisions and we have so many users and project managers utilizing the tools. They have a different bunch of templates. We're not just following one or two templates. We have a number of templates that the teams are using."
"It gave us a clarity of purpose. Everybody knows what they are doing and that they are all aligned: Managers know what employees are doing. Employees know what they are doing and the managers think they should be doing. That is the clarity which really helps in efficiency."
"We use PPM Pro with Projectplace. It is absolutely 100 percent fantastic. Now, we can give people that more collaborative, comfortable look and feel with a Kanban board view. We give them a smart app that goes along with it, essentially not having to worry about using rigid project management. They are very complementary towards each other: PPM Pro and Projectplace. What one is not so strong in, the other one has strengths in it. It is fantastic."
 

Cons

"The initial setup is challenging because it relies on information from different stakeholders."
"There should be the ability to store historical functions, but this is not just for this tool. It is applicable to many tools. It would be great if we were able to store specific historical data, such as risk management."
"This solution does not work well as a task management system because it is very difficult to expand beyond just the basic tasks, and this would be a worthwhile area for improvement."
"We don't use their existing dashboard functionality. Hopefully, with the new reporting release that is coming out in November, we will be able to evaluate as to how we can leverage that. What I hear, "Everyone has either a Tableau or something else because Planview doesn't provide a dashboard." We should not need to use another tool. Planview has the data, so it should be able to give us what we want. This would also reduce costs since we are paying licenses for those tools too."
"The initial setup was a little complex. There is so much to customize. It'd be good to have some templates out-of-the-box."
"The integration with some of these other tools that we use, like the Azure DevOps needs improvement. I heard there are few things coming within Planview or PPM Pro itself, but I think it's still future dated. These integrations are key for us from an organizational perspective."
"The resource management tab is clunky, inefficient, and slow. And from a portfolio manager perspective, it would be nice if there were an easier way to view enterprise-wide resourcing to manage my team more effectively."
"From a usability standpoint, the part where there are people on the tasks section on a team is a little challenging. Then for some reason, the in-demand reports are embedded in the resource section and to run them is just completely different and separate from the reports entity which is a lot."
"Additional Agile capabilities, including integration with the Agile development app, would be welcome features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I am with a third-party so am not privy to costs."
"Bulk volume discounts are a little better. Right now we have to buy in lots of 20 at $200 a license. That's a little steep. For example, with Service Now, I pay $48 a seat for a license."
"Because we have PPM Pro with Project place, we transitioned to the Flex model."
"Pricing was fair and I thought it was comparable to the other ones that we looked at. Other than ServiceNow, it was the most expensive, but we knew we were going to get a lot of value for that, so we went with it. We paid $40,000 for the implementation and for the workshops."
"We have their Flex plan."
"Our current license is from 2019 to 2022. So for that three-year subscription, it was $60,000 for the subscription, users, platform, and connections. Then there were some add-ons. Connecting to some of our other systems like HR for that period cost us around $12,000."
"The cost was in line."
"$6 million has been the return on investment so far, and that was because of work intake. Now that we are scrutinizing the work intake and asking questions like, "Is there an alternative to your $10 million project?" We had one project come in for $10 million, scrutinize it through our gate review process, and wound up with the alternative, which was $3.8 million. So, a $6 million savings."
"My advice is to pay attention to integration opportunities to reduce your licensing cost with Planview. There are additional costs for consulting services and advanced customer support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Project Portfolio Management solutions are best for your needs.
866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise24
 

Also Known As

Alfabet Cloud
Innotas
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
The Weather Channel, corcs, Crayola, Scan Health Plan, Vermont, Bank of the West, North West Company, University of Southern Mississippi, Jeffries, Purdue University, Chesterfield County Virginia, City of Memphis
Find out what your peers are saying about Planisware, ServiceNow, Smartsheet and others in Project Portfolio Management. Updated: August 2025.
866,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.