We performed a comparison between iServer and Planview Portfolios based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Architecture Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have to think less with this solution. It's simple."
"The product has a valuable customized model."
"iServer is a solution that helps catalog enterprise architect solutions and catalog information."
"We like the governance."
"Integrating the Microsoft documents to the product and visualization matrix where we can see the end-to-end relationship of the network is of great importance to our company."
"The solution is easily modified to suit your needs."
"Good and effective reporting features, which help in decision making."
"There were lots of different requirements, and collaboration and review is one of the biggest things. There is also Office 360 integration, and there's flexibility to use it as a database as well."
"I like that everyone is able to see the same data. All of our users who aren't just time reporters have read access to all the data that is out there. So, it is one source of truth where everybody can go in and see the exact same data that everybody else sees. It is transparent."
"The financial planning capabilities are very useful. We have integration for an SAP system, and so we load financial data from SAP into Planview for prior months. And then we use the forecasting capabilities to get a complete picture of the cost of a specific project. The financial management is very useful."
"The resource management and assignment features are valuable. The timesheet management is also valuable because that is a requirement for us. So, the ability to see timesheet forecasting and timesheet actual submission from resources has been very useful and valuable to us."
"Enterprise One provides end-to-end work management for the full spectrum of types of work in one tool. It affects our project management because our project management uses Planview to monitor their daily work. Every night it loads our SAP system and then they monitor the daily work. They use Planview as a full planning and monitoring tool."
"The resource capacity planning is the most valuable feature because you can evaluate your team's capacity by team and what projects they're working on and you can forecast easily by team."
"The biggest impact has been getting all these global groups into one space so we can even have intelligent conversations about what are we trying to accomplish. Before, it was just different regions doing whatever. Now, we're all talking the same language, and that's good."
"The flexibility on offer is very helpful in meeting the organization's needs."
"It gives us the vast ability to churn out-of-the-box reports and have an overview about approach rates and resource utilization."
"The performance is slow, which is something that should be improved."
"Cannot see which activities are control activities."
"We could allocate permissions to use only specific components to the users rather than the entire instance."
"The modelling needs improvement, specifically forecasting capabilities and scenarios."
"There could be features for process mining, process simulation, and analytics."
"There are other solutions out there that have a better user interface."
"The one issue is that if you want to import predefined work, you need to put the licensing model in. So if you wanted to import work that was done before, you then need to buy a separate product for that."
"The migration tool needs to be included in the main package, and not as a separate license."
"There can be improvement on the sense of urgency because a lot of times we've exhausted everything that we can, and now, we're reaching out. So, it isn't a, "Well, have you tried to reboot this?" We've already done everything. Once we put in a ticket, there should be more of a sense of urgency on it."
"Visualization and reporting areas could use improvements by having canned reports."
"The resource area needs improvement. The improvements that have been made recently in the later versions have been good improvements, but I think there are some more improvements needed there."
"We had issues with the data rephrasing."
"We don't use the Progression feature. We will use it at some point in time. Until then, we want to have a way to set time to help decide what's in the past, present, and future. It is one of the things we've been discussing with Planview."
"The outcome management and work resource management in terms of teams needs improvement. Team handling, how team requirements are generated, and how the resource managers can work with teams needs to be improved."
"While Planview Management provides robust reporting and analytics capabilities, further enhancements could include more advanced data visualization options, predictive analytics features, and customizable dashboards to provide deeper insights into project performance and trends."
"We do have some significant issues with our integrations that we're working through. Those are not as stable or reliable as what we would like."
iServer is ranked 6th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 15 reviews while Planview Portfolios is ranked 11th in Enterprise Architecture Management with 63 reviews. iServer is rated 7.2, while Planview Portfolios is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of iServer writes "Enables flexible parameters for any process model and has a valuable document management feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Planview Portfolios writes "Helps prioritize projects, share the big picture with management, and has a great planning capacity". iServer is most compared with LeanIX, Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, Visio, ARIS BPA and MEGA HOPEX, whereas Planview Portfolios is most compared with Broadcom Clarity , Planview PPM Pro, SAP Portfolio and Project Management, LeanIX and Planview ProjectPlace. See our Planview Portfolios vs. iServer report.
See our list of best Enterprise Architecture Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise 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.
