I'd like to see what people think of these products as well.
I believe P3E is better at resource management and cost management, but MS Project 2003 is much cheeper, and it has good portfolio analysis capabilities. Saving Changes...
Along side P3E you need to investigate MyPrimavera, uses the same schedules defined in P3E to provide Project Portfolio Management in real time. You can also use it for 90% of your scheduling functions. About the only thing you still need P3E for is admin tasks (creating activity codes, creating users etc). You can get away with one more expensive P3E licence and then just the cheaper MyPrimavera licences which is web based. Saving Changes...
Sarah BenjaminProject Scheduler| Kelly ServicesWaltham, Ma, United States
Primavera may be more expensive than MS Project 2003's desktop tool, but you have to evaluate the total cost of ownership for both systems which will include the MS Project Server and Web Access. Once you evaluate the cost of the entire MSP toolset, you'll realize it is somewhat more complicated and expensive to implement than Primavera. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
While there is some value in comparing one product to another, any side by side analysis without consideration of the intended target market for the vendor's product is of questionable use and integrity. I would contend that Microsoft Office EPM serves their target market exceptionally well. And P3E serves its target market exceptionally well. While there is a little overlap, the two target markets are quite different. Saving Changes...
