"The timekeeping features are great and very helpful."
"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."
"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 solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect."
"The usability is excellent."
"The solution, overall, is excellent for project planning."
"The scheduling and the customization are very powerful."
"I like the way you can build the schedule by the Don't Start Before or Don't Start After values. You can use it to build your schedule based on how you change your dates. This is how it actually builds the schedule."
"The stability of the 2019 version is quite good."
"The solution is scalable and easy to expand."
"Microsoft Project Server helps organizations in collaboration."
"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."
"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."
"This solution needs more standard connectors to other solutions."
"The check-in, check-out feature makes Microsoft Project Server pretty slow or cumbersome to use."
"The reporting aspects can be improved, which is one of the reasons why I'm using Qlik Sense. In the older on-prem versions, reporting was lackluster, to say the least. Project Online has a better handle on that. However, we will still be using Qlik Sense. We're also looking at an add-on app from a company called OnePlan that adds some additional functionality where Microsoft is not as clean in its approach for things such as portfolio management and some of the trends analysis."
"This solution could improve by adding integration with Primavera schedules to allow the reading and management of them."
"The solution could have more compact dashboards, such as one finds with Planview."
"The deployment aspect of the product is a bit tedious."
"It should be more agile and more flexible when it comes to customization."
"Collaboration within the tool is lacking when you compare it to online or cloud-based tools."
"It needs to be more collaborative from inside the application. It only does project scheduling for me. It would be good if it could do other things and be more collaborative, such as sharing tasks for users. It is not really incorporated into MS Office, so you can't copy-paste stuff. It is on its own, doing its own thing. It is only used for scheduling, and it doesn't work well with anything else."
Changepoint Daptiv is ranked 6th in Project Portfolio Management with 6 reviews while Microsoft Project Server is ranked 3rd in Project Portfolio Management with 13 reviews. Changepoint Daptiv is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Project Server is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Changepoint Daptiv writes "Strong analytics and capacity-planning". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Project Server writes "Provides holistic reporting and allows us to keep track of what's going on with projects". Changepoint Daptiv is most compared with Broadcom Clarity PPM, Planview PPM Pro, JIRA Portfolio, Planview Enterprise One and SAP Portfolio and Project Management, whereas Microsoft Project Server is most compared with JIRA Portfolio, Broadcom Clarity PPM, Planview Enterprise One, Jira and Planview PPM Pro. See our Changepoint Daptiv vs. Microsoft Project Server report.
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.