Talk:Comparison of project management software

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Gemini

In reveiwing the features of Gemini from their website I am unable to confirm that the software has Resource Management and/or Document Management capabilities. I believe that the chart may be in error and that these two items should be "No" on the chart instead of "Yes."70.39.231.92 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)bmolnaa[reply]

Descrepencies in Features

I assume that when an PM Software app is added to the list, it is assumed to do none of the features? Is that why MantisBT (for example) is reported to be a "Non-Collaborative" software? Or is that the definition of that needs to be specified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.108 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Additional Feature Column

I would suggest adding a column to features to show which ones have mobile apps. I think that would be an extremely useful feature for a matrix like this.

129.119.81.135 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Lisa Simpson[reply]

Feature Request: How to tell state-of-art software from crap?

I came to this page to look for an alternative to my redmine installation. I think this table is simply too big. It's really hard to find 2–4 state-of-art alternatives to redmine within a haystack of possibly-crap software. Perhaps there should a column with voting. Registered users (ok, only those with 10+ or 100+ unrejected edits) would click ok or +1 if she/he knows/uses/heard-of such software. This would ease tell the popular software from some niche software that is used only by its author. The rest of us would then sort the software by popularity and avoid the work of testing crap software. --ChewbaccaKL (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia and not a not a !vote tool. You are searching at the wrong place for such kind of problems. Although we could possible add a column how many users/companies use a particular tool if you can find any confirmed data.

On the other hand we could ad a column if any particular tool is still in development.

On the other hand: which kind of feature are you missing? mabdul 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched and found quite a few sites giving reviews that propose top x project management software. It appears more important for a Wikipedia article to be fully inclusive and give facts in the tables for each qualifying entry. For me codendi.org and fossil-scm.org are missing from the list. Nrbray (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daptiv Edit Request 31 March 2013

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible to add Daptiv Software (http://www.daptiv.com/) to the comparison page. A number of our competitors are on the page comparison list many smaller and some larger. As an employee I do not want to write the Daptiv page, as I am obviously a biased source and don't want that to be represented or for our page to read like an advertisement. We have been around since 1997 and have many articles online written about us.

Daptiv (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WTAF. For the case you or one of your company want to write an article, try our WP:WIZARD, or request one at WP:RA. (as more references you can provide, the earlier somebody will write one!) mabdul 17:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Table...any suggestions

Hey,
I'd like to add a new table which tells about these softwares under these headings. I was going to edit the page but read the notice so thought to ask here before adding it.

Budget Management
Time Tracking
Invoicing

Any suggestions. Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sounds good. This edit notice is mostly for people who only want to add and push their product/company. mabdul 16:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the suggestion :)
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MatchWare MindView Information Update

Updated Version and Hosted/SaaS Information on Matchware Mindview Steveswei 19:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)

VPMi

Trying to find documentation that specifically says it, but VPMi offers SAAS and can be hosted by the company or hosted internally by the client. Additionally, they offer reporting, workflow systems, and document management. In the final table, it also does budget management and Time Tracking, though it doesn't have any specific invoicing ability (an ad-hoc report could be made easily, but its not a feature per se). Waiting to find specific linkable information to update the table as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matodt (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

This page is really difficult to maintain due to the 3 tables used. A few products are missing in 1 or 2 tables. I guess the reason for splitting the data in 3 tables was dictated by the width of the table.

I suggest that we merge at least the Features and Monetary features into 1 table to have a more precise list. With this merge, it'll easier to maintain the list when adding or removing softwares. Does someone object to this proposal? Captone (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging ALL of the data into one table, even if it requires scrolling to the side. Having the information broken into three tables is making it VERY difficult for me to compare products by the features I need. I've been scrolling up and down and up and down for the last few days as I'm investigating and it's really annoying. Fleep (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many entries not primarily for project management

This list is misleading. A lot of entries are not Project management softwares. They are software with a (or some) project management feature. I propose to restrict this list to software that have project management as one of their main features when looking at their description. All other software must be deleted from the list. - 09:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Captone (talk)

I'd suggest first breaking it into those which are primarily for project management and those with a bit of PM functionality - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that this split would be easier to manage if there was a clear definition of what a "primarily" project management software is? I'd suggest that when the wikipedia page describing the software has "project management" in the first 3 features, it's "primarily". Captone (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top-of-page comment turned into an edit notice

Template:Editnotices/Page/Comparison of project management software - could probably do with tweaking. Needs to look right for both source editing and visual editing (looks a bit tl;dr in VE to my eye). Please hack away at it - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why Rally is not listed?

See: https://www.rallydev.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.148.7 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added, but does it also make sense to create a new wiki page for Comparison of Agile automation & management software? Since most of these project management packages listed are more waterfall or tollgate management modal based.