Shortlists usually get built from feature lists, and feature lists rarely decide anything. These comparisons work differently: one requirement set, one 250-user scenario, one verification date, and the edition each capability actually ships in.
The percentage beside each product summarizes its requirement table; it is not the verdict. Read the table. Where a vendor does not publish a price, the pages say so rather than inventing one.
Planner and Project Plan 3 at $30 per user per month. Strong inside a Microsoft estate; the licence count is what decides it.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Microsoft Planner 70A no-code work platform teams adopt quickly. Portfolio management, advanced analytics and governance sit in the Enterprise tier.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, monday.com 62Enterprise brings Portfolios, Scenario Planning and SAML SSO. Time tracking and the delivery-tool connectors are still priced separately.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Smartsheet 65Genuinely good at request intake, approvals and proofing. Portfolio budgeting and advanced capacity planning require Pinnacle.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Wrike 62Sprints and Gantt in one hierarchy, real Enterprise governance, and free guests at scale. ClickUp does not publish an Enterprise price; the tier below it is $36,000 at 250 users.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, ClickUp 64Goals that update themselves from the work, and a two-way Jira Cloud sync built in-house. Budgets, rates and audit logging are separately priced add-ons.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Asana 63A dedicated Portfolio Modeler for side-by-side investment scenarios. Professional runs $90,000 a year at 250 users.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, OnePlan 93A thirteen-app PPM suite built on Microsoft Dataverse, with a published flat platform fee of $2,600 a month. The Power Apps licence every app user needs is bought separately, and the Microsoft side of the bill outweighs the platform fee.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, pmo365 73Portfolio data stays inside your own Microsoft tenant, and the Microsoft Project Desktop integration is the deepest here. Strategic goal tracking, prioritisation and benefits realisation sit in the tier above Portfolio.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Altus 64The only product here with native business architecture and capability planning. Quoted, and consulting-led.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, NH360 84Barely a product decision if you already run ServiceNow. A platform decision if you do not.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, ServiceNow SPM 85The incumbent enterprise PPM platform, with cost accounting depth few match. Quoted, and an implementation programme rather than a project.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Broadcom Clarity 88The closest functional match in this set. It meets seventeen of eighteen requirements, and the one it misses is per-seat cost.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Planview AdaptiveWork 92Capable and openly priced at $45 per user per month, which makes 250 seats the highest published figure in this set.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Celoxis 77Built for capital and regulated delivery: earned value, commitments and services margin. Quoted rather than published.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Cora PPM 88The deepest documented resource forecasting in this set, with published formulas. One delivery-tool connector, documented as read-only, and $96,000 a year at 250 users.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Prism PPM 58A no-code object model you shape to your own operating system, with genuinely bidirectional Jira and Azure DevOps sync. No documented AI, and no published price.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Triskell 69Turnkey PPM with waterline scenario analysis and one-click editable executive decks. Check carefully which capabilities are Orchestra rather than Planisware Enterprise.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Planisware Orchestra 60Lean capacity-constrained portfolio planning, with free unlimited users. Pro is $51,780 a year at 300 planned resources. Deliberately not work-execution software.
Requirement fit: PPM Express 95, Meisterplan 69How these scores are produced. All nineteen platforms are measured against the same eighteen requirements, at the same 250-user scenario, using published vendor documentation only. The requirement set, the weightings, the three buyer scenarios, the evidence rules and the limitations are set out in full on the comparison methodology page.
The pages above compare the tools. These cover the switch itself — what the migration involves once the decision is made.
Moving portfolio management off Smartsheet sheets and reports into PPM Express.
What changes when Wrike work management is replaced by a portfolio layer.
Replacing OnePlan inside a Microsoft estate without disrupting delivery teams.
Moving off an enterprise PPM suite to something the whole organisation can use.
The assisted migration path for teams moving their portfolio data across.
Rolling Planner plans up into a portfolio while teams keep working in Planner.
What the Planner and Project licence tiers cost, and what changed when Project for the Web retired.
Portfolio reporting on top of Jira, without changing how teams work.
Integrations
Roll Azure DevOps delivery into a portfolio leadership can read.
Integrations
Bring Planner work into portfolio-level visibility.
Integrations
The dedicated page for governing hundreds of projects across every business unit and delivery tool.
Product
Last updated 20 August 2026
How the nineteen comparisons are scored, sourced and kept current.
Every platform is measured against the same eighteen enterprise PMO requirements, at the same 250-user scenario. Each requirement is scored Meets, Partially meets, Does not meet or Not verified, weighted by whether it is mandatory, important or optional, and expressed as a percentage. The full method is published on the comparison methodology page.
No, and we say so on every page. PPM Express produces and funds them and sells one of the products being compared. What we do instead of claiming independence is show our working: every verdict cites the vendor's own documentation, every page names where PPM Express is the weaker choice, and the pricing tables include the user counts at which a competitor costs less than we do.
The assessments are drafted with AI from each vendor's published documentation, then reviewed and approved by PPM Express Analysts before publication. AI does the reading at a scale a small team could not. Our analysts decide what gets published, and we are accountable for it.
On this requirement set, Planview AdaptiveWork at 92 and OnePlan at 93 are the closest functional matches. The gap in both cases is commercial rather than functional, since both are priced per seat while PPM Express is a flat annual fee with unlimited users.
Each comparison carries the date its evidence was last read, shown in the page header. Where a vendor does not publish a price for the plan being assessed, we say so and show the published tier beneath it as a floor rather than estimating a number.
Tell us. Send the requirement number, the page and a link to the official documentation that contradicts our assessment. Corrections that hold up are applied and the verification date is updated.
.svg){kind=small}
