No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Microsoft Project Server vs PowerSteering 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

Microsoft Project Server
Ranking in Project Portfolio Management
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PowerSteering
Ranking in Project Portfolio Management
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Project Portfolio Management category, the mindshare of Microsoft Project Server is 5.0%, down from 6.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PowerSteering is 1.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Project Portfolio Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Project Server5.0%
PowerSteering1.8%
Other93.2%
Project Portfolio Management
 

Featured Reviews

JV
Owner at CPSTECH
Collaborative task management simplifies office work, but agile methodology features need enhancement
In order to improve Microsoft Project Server, collaborative features could be enhanced, as it is possible to improve it in a collaborative way similar to other office products, for example, using cloud drives like OneDrive. Another feature is Kanban or other features such as Scrum with agile methodologies. Microsoft Project Server is limited and falls short in using agile methodologies, which is the most important issue to improve. Microsoft Project Server is a good product; it is possible to improve regarding enabling agile features because the teams in my work are using Trello and Jira products due to the blackboards, Kanban, and Scrum. To do activities and stopping activities is more comfortable and easier to use, making it more practical in my teamwork. These features do not exist in Microsoft Project Server.
it_user4230 - PeerSpot reviewer
VP of Product at a legal firm with 51-200 employees
Excellent portfolio management SaaS - strategy, savings, visibility
I haven't used the product for over a year, so this could be out of date but entering information was somewhat cumbersome. PPM systems in general are a challenge to keep populated with current information. The business priority of portfolio visibility must be communicated to users and reinforced that the project doesn't exist unless it's updated in the system.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Microsoft Project Server is simple to use."
"Project Server allows us to have a clear visualization of the action plan and the milestone to be reached; to know which resources are dedicated to what."
"The solution has improved the organization primarily due to the transparency between each individual team, and I have likely seen a 20% to 28% increase in productivity benefit over a year's time."
"The most valuable feature of the Microsoft Project Server is the level of detail with which I can break down a task and check the dependencies."
"The ability to track a project's progress using Microsoft Project Server is the most valuable aspect. It depends, especially when managing multiple projects."
"The key things are managing interactions, resource allocation, resource-leveling (enterprise) and as a collaborative tool, because we use it across multiple projects at a time."
"The scheduling feature is the most useful."
"The solution's ease of use is its most valuable aspect."
"Very configurable software; almost any stage-gate process can be mapped and defined in the software giving excellent visibility to your project portfolio."
 

Cons

"Microsoft Project Server is limited and falls short in using agile methodologies, which is the most important issue to improve."
"From a features perspective, the insights around the cost and budget could be improved; competitor products are more robust, and Project Server has a very limited feature in terms of reporting, especially around cost control, with built-in reports and analytics that are very minimal and far behind what competitors offer."
"It has to be more user-friendly. For instance, there should be some assistance, like when you go to certain sites, people pop up and say, "Can we help you? What are you looking for?" It's not interactive enough."
"OOB reporting is not very robust."
"The product is difficult to use for complex projects."
"There are more user-friendly products on the market that I would suggest using in preference to this one."
"I don't think it's very scalable. It's not that easy to navigate or scale up and down according to your needs."
"We need to be able to compare milestones, calls, and other variables regarding the projects we are working on. I have to contract developers to make reports, which is where things get complicated. They need to develop personal and custom fields for us."
"Entering information was somewhat cumbersome."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, and our licensing is based on the agreement."
"The licensing was procured before my involvement."
"A standard license is cheaper, but if you want more features, then there is a premium license or professional license."
"There are some payments related to the licensing cost of Microsoft Project Server."
"It is on the expensive side."
"I'm not quite sure about the licensing costs. We're probably paying somewhere in the neighborhood of about 80,000 to 90,000 a year for our current on-prem because we handle our own licensing. As far as Project Online is concerned, we're still trying to get a good handle on that. It looks like it is going to be in a neighborhood of about 120,000 to 150,000 a year, but we're getting a lot more capability out of it."
"It has features that cannot be bought by other rivals, so cost does not matter."
"Microsoft Project Server is an expensive solution. Small businesses will not be able to afford it."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Project Portfolio Management solutions are best for your needs.
900,838 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business25
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise33
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Project Server?
The pricing for Microsoft Project Server is standard, around $200-$250, but I think it's actually $80 to $100 per year. The pricing for Microsoft Project Server is relative; I would say it is cheap.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Project Server?
In order to improve Microsoft Project Server, collaborative features could be enhanced, as it is possible to improve it in a collaborative way similar to other office products, for example, using c...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Project Server?
Today, the use cases for Microsoft Project Server are for office tasks, such as writing in Word processors, worksheets in Excel, Word processors with Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

MS Project Server
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Magnachip, Gwinnett County Schools, CLEAResult, Medbit Oy, Intelbras S.A., ETS, CORE Construction, Keller Foundations
Church Pension Group, UK Highways Agency, US Department of Defense, Electrocomponents, Novation, Staples, Molex, Polyone, NHS Lincolnshire
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Planisware, monday.com and others in Project Portfolio Management. Updated: June 2026.
900,838 professionals have used our research since 2012.