Talk:Comparison of project management software/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attention: someone made negative changes to all pm software entries in the list - please check

Could you please check if the modifications on 20 of june 2011 from User:62.84.129.10 (contribs) were ok?

He/she modified on the page "Comparison of project management software" ALL entries of all listed products from "yes" to "no" regarding "Workflow" and "report" functionality.

In my opinion that was misuse/incorrect as no explication was given and all those products were reduced in quality on a subjective way (can you imagine any serious project management software without report functionality?) I know PLANTA Project very well and restored the information that this product has workflow and report functionality. Anybody who knows the other products concerned (more than 50!) should contribute in restoring correct information here - otherwise the list is nothing worth. The person who made the changes on 20 of june 2011 introduced two new products to the list (with full functionality)!! Who wonders? Projektleiter (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projektleiter (talk • contribs)

Column for Platform/Dependencies?

There is no column for something as basic as "requires Windows/.NET". I am interested in open/proprietary, the functions and all that. It also matters, though, whether something is available on Windows only, or on Linux (which distros?) or on BSD or Mac OS X.

Would it be acceptable to add a column for "Platform", that being the platform required to run the server of the software, and not just the client.

RayKiddy (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask if it is ok to add a column of which programming language the software is using to development. E.g., some may perfer .NET/Java/PHP, etc.

Neoaries (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OpenProj

Somebody seems to remove my OpenProj entry every time...why?! What's your problem with this free software???

Please don't remove the OpenProj entry. It is open source and hosted by SourceForge. Furthermore, it seems to become a viable alternative to OpenWorkbench and it is completely written in Java which, in contrast to OpenWorkbench, makes it a platform independent application.

Thanks :) --88.64.3.168 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

* Hi, your entry has been removed because it has no article and the link appears like this: OpenProj (red). If this article is notable, please write an article for it before adding it to this page. If the article is not notable, it should not appear on Wikipedia. Please see the notability criteria for companies and software for better understanding of this policy and what notability is. Thanks -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

* I have written an article about OpenProj now, but it was removed also. Now I doubt whether someone does not want serious competition and just removes all entries which might describe valuable alternatives to a product mentioned on the list of project management software... :( --Jonny.dee 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was sent the following message:

Please read Wikipedia:Notability before creating any more articles. That will save you wasting your time. Deb 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read this and still I have no clue what I did wrong -- especially with the article I wrote. If software like KPlato, Open Workbench, Planner, and TaskJuggler is worth to be mentioned then OpenProj is even more worth to be mentioned. --Jonny.dee 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Removal of this page shows a quite inconsistant implemtentation of wiki policy. If OpenProject's page is going to be removed, then other project management software package's pages should also be removed. Dingfelder 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, in their current state. It might be an interesting task to fix all of them up if you have some time. The primary problem is that most of them simply offer no verifiable claim of notability or completely lack references. It's really not hard to fix this. I would recommend to first fix the article (drop the puffy unsupported claims, or find some reliable sources to back them up), then simply ask the admin who deleted the article to restore it. Most will be happy to. If you need help with formatting cites, please let me know. Kuru ^talk 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is pretty lame. I heard of the Wikipedians who are bent on removing good information, but I hadn't seen it until now. You can go on about Wiki-red-tape all you want, the bottom line is that the page is a list of project management software, and you're insisting that it stay incomplete. ---- 75.93.149.229 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Openproj is now in the list - so this is closed Wakelamp (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ProjectManager.com

Hi. I'm new to this and I really need your advice about listing ProjectManager.com on this comparison page. It seems that any listing needs to be done very carefully, to meet the Wiki guidelines - which I want to comply with. So before I start out, can you please tell me, if I create a page about ProjectManager.com which lists factual content (taken from published articles) and then link to it from this Comparison page, then is that ok? Thanks for your advice. --Marianicholson (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianicholson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) ProjectManager.com is in the list This is in the list Wakelamp (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PSNext

Please don't remove PSNext. It is legitimate proprietary web-based project management software

Teamwork (a) doesn't have a wikipedia page, and (b) costs €600 per server with compulsory negotiation for more than 100 licenses, so doesn't really qualify for being in the Free Software section (even if they give away the old version of their program). Ojw 09:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the occurrences of "Proprietary" to "Commercial". This sounds more accurate and less free-software jihadi. Jgw 15:45, 11 October 2006

"Proprietary" and "Commercial" are not synonyms when applied to software. As an example, follow the URL to "Project.net" on this page to see that the company identifies the software as "Commercial Open Source Software". --209.91.162.170 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Power Project

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately the commercial links you added to the page List of project management software were inappropriate -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines for corporations. Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there . Please add PSNext from Sciforma Corporation www.sciforma.com It is a legitatimate proprietory web-based project management system and should be there.

Regards Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.10.34 (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the guideline is really vague. When you list commercial software here in this list by itself isn't already advertising? So do you mean as long as a software provider create a content page in wiki and describe the product. For example your link to MS project, and then create a link here to that content, that means it is not advertising?

According to your arguement and guidelines, I have deleted gantt project which is an external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.185.21.190 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.185.21.190 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Should Project Open be deleted as well since it is also an external link?

Hi Renesis.

I have no association with the given company, but the software is important.

Other software items are already listed.

Many links on Wikipedia refer to commercial products - indeed I often use it for precisely this reason.

Are you sure you are acting correctly?

Regards Johnbibby 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnbibby 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Primavera Project Planner

I don't know why did you remove the Primavera Project Planner from the list, It's is one of the most common project planning applications right here in Egypt, It's even more famous than MS Project.--Premiero 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. Primavera Project Planner and SureTrak are the most famous project management software in construction business. Maybe computer-people don't even know that. That's why they list only computer-related project management software. --Manop - TH 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the decision to remove Primavera from the list, too. Indeed this software is very important to project management of large projects. And this doesn't apply to Egypt only (I am from Germany). MS Project only matches the requirements of small projects. So this list appears in my opinion in a bad light, because it only lists software depending on the degree of its popularity but not depending on relevance for professionals.--Jntheis (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time it was removed, there was not an article on the topic. There appears to be one now at Primavera P3, so feel free to add. Kuru ^talk 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

XL-EasyGantt

I don't know why you had removed XL-EasyGantt. How is it different from the rest of the other applications listed here? It was created with its own wiki content and was not an external link. Why do you consider it as advertising when the rest of the applications listed here are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikerbandt (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 June 2007

Missing Legend?

Hi,

I don't understand the meaning of the labels 'PM' 'PPM' 'IT' etc..

Anyone?

Thanks, Ori 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a legend at the bottom of the page. Each icon is a link, too. -- Renesis (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding group "Freeware"

Why not adding group "Freeware" with undergroups "OS" and "proprietary"? --Kaster 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Help desk question

At the help desk post Our software was once in Wikipedia and now its not there, a user asks about 'Creative Manager Pro' and this article. Please feel free to provide an answer. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerebral Project(TM)

Someone seems to have removed the Cerebral Project(TM) from the list, too, claiming that the article was written as an advertisement. I have edited it twice personnally to remove anything that even looks like an advertisement. I even tried to follow the same style of another project management tool in the list and yet it was still removed. I am not sure who is controlling this but it seems that it is someone who is biased and does not to have certain packages/software to be listed!! Clicking through the existing list, I see the other packages more of an advertisement than the original Cerebral Project(TM) article!!!— 24.59.50.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a article exists doesn't prove that your article should also exist. This list is for entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites are removed. Asadabutarif (talk · contribs) created the article (I'll asume thats you), and it was deleted as an advert. I've reviewed the deleted version and it is a blatently advertisement. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article here.--Hu12 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AsadAbu-Tarif is me. I thought the article "list of project management software" lists project management software packages and a comparison of their features. We added Cerebral Project(TM) as one of them and tried to list its features and weaknesses, which is inline with the objective of the article. It seems that someone is here to decide which software package is "notable" and which ones are not (like Cerebral Project, Open Project, and XL-EasyGantt, apparently). Anyway, adding Cerebral Project(TM) to the list is a blatant advertisement but all the others might or might not be. But Cerebral Project(TM) is the package that is not notable enough to be listed!! Makes sense and very objective assessment and cherry picking of what to remove! Anyway, I tried to edit it several times to make sure that we are being objective about what's good or bad in this package. But it seems the meer listing of this software package is considered a "blatant advertisement", even if the other software package listings do nothing else but that!! Thanks for your objectivity in picking which software package is good enough to be listed and which ones are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Cerebral Project. Your contributions to wikipedia under Asadabutarif and IP 24.59.50.217, consist entirely of promoting Cerebral Project and is considered WP:Spam.See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia.--Hu12 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Like many comments on this discussion list, it seems that your application of these policies is entirely haphazard. I don't deny being part of Cerebral Project and I would have not minded someone adding weaknesses of Cerebral Project(TM) to the article. But arguing here is of no value at this point. Keep the list limited to what you would like to include and exclude all the packages that you don't want. I would have thought that an artile titled "List of Project Management Software" would benefit from an as extensive a list as possible and leave it up to the reader to decide which ones seem advertisement and which ones provide useful evaluation/information about features. But that's only me! Frankly, if you don't want any "advertisement", then the whole "List of Project Management software" article must be removed because it serves no other purpose than promote certain packages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had read the instruction text on the articles main page when you hit the edit buton you would have seen ... "IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THIS MESSAGE, YOUR EDIT WILL BE ROLLED BACK WITHOUT WARNING.....Only place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or sites that are not project management software will be removed. If you have questions, use the talk page. Please try to keep entries in alphabetical order. Adding unnecessary links or text to any other section (such as the "References" section) will also be removed. Thanks. Please see "Wikipedia:Notability" for information on notability for Wikipedia" arguing about this articles inclusion criteria isnt time well spent, especialy when it clear whats expected from new additions.--Hu12 03:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not arguing the policy, I'm arguing your selective application of the policy and your definition of "notable" project management software. So, please spare me the "policy said so" argument. I wasn't only arguing for Cerebral Project, but also for others that got excluded like Open Project and XL-Easy Gantt. Obviously, these ARE project management software packages, but apparently they are not notable in your opinion. As you said, arguing further is not time well spent. The policy states that only "notable" packages shall be listed and obviously you are entitled to decide which ones are notable. I just, and others if you care to read this discussion page, disagree with your judgement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.50.217 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" project management software packages are listed because they meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The notability guidlines define whats notable. Just because a project management software package exist hardly makes it notable. Editors make the Notability policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. Reading this discussion page Just illustrates why inclusion critera is so importatant. This is an encyclopedia--Hu12 05:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if Cerebral Project is not notable (which many others already in the list are not btw), Open Project must be. Again, the inconsistency of applying this policy is what is causing all this. Many on the do not have this secondary coverage the policy states. Open Project and Primavera are very popular packages with a wide install base and should be notable. Anyway, thanks for your reponses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.223.18.102 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing this Page Entirely

I believe the spirit of Wiki is to be open and neutral and not to be controlled by a few editors who play God in deciding what is notable and what is not. Listed in this page are many commercial products, some of which only have a skeleton wiki page and are left in this list for some reasons. I am curious as to what the Editors based on to decide what is notable? Do you conduct a research on the number of users using the PM products or is there a user voting system to decide what is to be retained in this list?

Since the existence of this page seems to be maintained based on some bias decisions and discrimination of other products, I propose to remove this page entirely as it does not make sense as there is no way this page can provide a fair and comprehensive lists of PM software.— LarryTonos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

This is your first post? If it isn't notable enough to have its own article, of what benifit to the encyclopedia is it to have it listed here? The spirit of Wikipedia does not include Self-promotion and product placement, in fact that is what wikipedia is WP:NOT. --Hu12 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

.. If you browse the list of PM software here, though they have their own wikipages, but some of them are just mere skeleton pages without substance. It is easy for anyone to create a wikipage for that product, and yet, how do you determine if one product has a wikipage that means it is notable? Like the previous person who commented, there were other products that have wikipages, but were deleted by Editors and on what basis do the Editors judge on these pages to delete them away? The criteria is not clear and it is this grey area that produced this unfair and bias listings arising doubts that the few people who control these pages maintain it for their own benefits and creating and anti-competition environment.— LarryTonos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:NOTABILITY is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. Notability requires objective evidence, such as having an Article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an internet guide, directory or a repository of one-click hosting links. Simply existing as a project management software site does not make it suitable for inclusion in an "encyclopedia". Actual Wikipedia articles about notable project management software sites are Welcome and should be included. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).--Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would really be helpful if you could help explain why Omniplan is notable as an example and how good an encyclopedia content it is when the Omniplan page has nothing in it but a link to the developer's website? Why is it here in the list while others were considered as unsuitable links even if they have their own wikipages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryTonos (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing this list is in my opinion not the right way to handle the problems with this article. We should not miss the chance to create a survey of the relevant software products. An encyclopedia is the right place for such a survey. Here is the best place to manage such a list objectively.

But this list lacks of expertise (knowledge of experts). E.g. the removal of PrimaVera is a clear indication for that fact. Large projects in construction business are planned using this software. It's a software for project management experts, not for the "average consumer" (like Ms Project is addressed to). This listing should not only show systems which are well known by a wide range of wikipedians. It has to list all current software known and used in the area of project management. Of course, such a list has to be updated continuously, but that must not be an obstacle!--Jntheis (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ProjectPier

As I see guide on home site ProjectPier, I see that task on ProjectPier may be assigned only to one user (here and here) and no depend on other task, so in this sense this tool equivalent to Trac tool.

ProjectPier has property be Project Menegment software, but Trac not. May by one alternative wrong? --Gavenko a (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Retrospectiva?

It is equivalent in functionality to Trac only written in Ruby on Rails. http://retrospectiva.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.70.249 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename of article

I believe that this article should be renamed to Comparison of project management software. It seems to be a better fit for the article, and it would be more in line with other similar articles. aliasd·U·T 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If I get no comment on this within a few days, I will just be bold (tm) aliasd·U·T 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While the column for basic functionality has been added to this page, similar articles with comparison tables (Comparison of BitTorrent Software, Comparison of Canadian tax software, Comparison of FTP clients, etc., see Special:Prefixindex/Comparison_of for more), have many more columns for fine-grained comparison. I would strongly object to this page going that direction, because these packages are so diverse that such an endeavor would end up a gigantic mess. Please leave the title the way it is, as it is much more a list than a comparison table. -- Renesis (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I would strongly object to this article becoming a mess too :) Although, I do think it is starting to become a comparison and I do believe it could rightly move towards becoming more of a comparison article without being a complete mess. aliasd·U·T 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissagree with that sort of change per Renesis. Its a list, not comparison. Looking through the article history as a whole perhaps this should be moved to Spam honeypot--Hu12 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, am happy that consensus has been reached for now. aliasd·U·T 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, I'm afraid it would be 10X worse as a "comparison" (inviting corporations to add feature columns that suit or highlight their particular product, etc.) -- Renesis (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Agree with consensus. Result is keep, although it is kind of sad that we are not expanding an article due to fears of advertising. aliasd·U·T 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tested all the software represented in this list but am concerned that Project Scheduler from Scitor(now Sciforma) is not on the list. This is a superb product that has always been several steps ahead of Microsoft. I selected it when it beat MS-Project in a product comparison at either Infoworld or PC-Mag. I forget which. Can someone please fix this? Georgelf (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) george

Legend is becoming useless

The addition of the color-coded PM, Collaboration, Issue Tracking, RM, and PPM columns to this list is becoming useless with every company adding every flag to their software. Soon it will be no better than not having it at all. Does anyone have any ideas on how to verify these flags so that we can clear out those that are exaggerating the functionality of their software? -- Renesis (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you doubt the accuracy of any claim, then add the { { fact } } tag to it. --DuLithgow (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The RM box should be added to RPlan line in your chart. RPlan has strong Resource Management capability for requesting and approving resources which is integrated into the Schedule Management module.--Louislong (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BaseCamp

I would like to ask if BaseCamp is qualified to be listed as a "project management software".

I believe it's more like a service provided by a company. The basecamp official site is not selling software but hosting services. An example of a project management software that is proprietary is MS Project. I believe, BaseCamp should be reclassified and listed under "List of Sites that offer Project Management hosting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.252.69 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are referring to is pretty much every software application in the Web-based category. Many of them are provided as a service, but this doesn't mean they are not software. -- Renesis (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Define: proprietary web-based application

I have noticed that many entries listed under "Proprietary web-based applications" are actually services and not mere software.

The primary difference between an opensource project management software and a proprietary project management software are in the way their source can be availed and modified.

So just imagine a commercial version of SVN Trac or Project Pier and that would be an example of proprietary web-based project management software. It would be practically be the same as the opensource equivalent/s, the only difference is that the source code will not be open to the public.

Who knows, perhaps some of these commercial services might just be mere deployment/installation instances of a single software that has been customized or enhanced?

The list should be renamed from "Proprietary web-based applications" to "Proprietary web-based project management services".

Perhaps I can setup my own customized and enhanced projectpier or SVNTrac installation and deploy it as an online service with the address "EasyProjManagement.com" and then have that custom job listed here in this wikipedia entry. What do you think?

The definition of Software is different from the definition of Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.252.69 (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the definition of "software" is different from the definition of "service". And here, we want to list software. As far as I know, there is unique software behind each product listed here (in other words, no custom installs served under a different domain name), even if it is brought to market as a "service". Basecamp can be considered both software and service -- Software as a service. I think the list is fine the way it is. -- Renesis (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RPlan, from Actano, is not typically offered as a service, although it could be. It is loaded in a database at the customer site, and accessed by browser via the company intranet, or when allowed by that company's IT dept, via the internet. If some of the software in this category is not set up this way, then maybe the category of Web based applications should be split into two pieces.--Louislong (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

notability

This notable notion is really a vague one ... It could represent (and it seems it already does ) a way of promoting certain products/vendors (even if they offer open source products, they are still using it as a way of promoting commercial products, etc) I would suggest that you either accept all products that are related to this domain or none; either option will be a better alternative that the current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all that vague in the context of this list; simply create another article related to the software that is verifiable by third part sources and is not written like ad-copy; and you can link to it from here. The threshold is astoundingly low. Kuru ^talk 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

don't waste your time here

Guys, don't try to waste your time here. Basically the editors or so call God of wikipedia are just plain prejudice. They will just go about deleting any software listing that is in competition with theirs or those the support. All this while they just can provide a good reason for the deleting and some of the software listed are not even fit to be listed as the articles referring to them are nothing but advertising page. So save your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.233.240 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 July 2008

Yes, it's true. Its easier to revert than to go create the linked content of the article, so thats what gets done around here, and it leaves a list biased toward those programs which the active volunteers care about. The procedure you should therefore follow is to start an article (it wont get deleted without a AFD discussion so don't worry), then link to it here, and everyone will be happy. Its rather bureaucratic and annoying for you, but easier on everyone as a whole in the long run (research notability once vs. researching it each time its mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.34.152 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above

As the CEO of Copper Project, a leading competitor to Basecamp, @Task and others (who themselves purchase "Copper Project" as a google adwords keyphrase!) I can tell you we have been removed three or four times for no justified reason, and now can not edit this list to add a legitimate vendor to the list. Wikidictatorship more like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benprendergast (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 August 2009

redmine

I dont understant why Redmine is not shown on this page while Trac is. Is there any reason ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.2.91 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can tell - as long as there's currently an article on the topic. Kuru ^talk 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merlin

Whatever3 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) When I got my Powerbook I needed to do a Gantt chart so after learning MS Project was not ported to Mac OS X and would never be. I went looking for an alternative. I ended up with Merlin. Then I didn't do any project management for a year or two and have now upgraded to Merlin 2. I don't know how many users it has or why it doesn't have a wikipedia page, but it is a good tool.

Merlin 2 News

This would be a good program to add, it is used in North America and Europe as it is available in English and German.

Cardinis

inserted Cardinis since included in Gartner in IT Project and Portfolio Management magic quadrant 2008. --Alphamu57 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sciforma PS8

This program is well known in industry; would be nice if someone looked it up and saw about starting an article. 128.95.34.152 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Streber PM

What about Streber PM: http://www.streber-pm.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrayka (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also http://www.dotproject.net CharlesC (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent table addition

Ahmerzaidi (talk · contribs) has recently added a massive 100k+ HTML table with a detailed comparison of a random selection of project management software solutions. There seems to be a link to a spreadsheet on a wiki, but this is not a reliable source for this information, and I have no idea if he had permission to copy it. I've asked for further citations on his talk page, but have received no response in two weeks. As the list is massive, uncited, and unverifiable, I've removed it until those issues can be fixed. Kuru ^talk 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing

• vBulletin with Project Tools -> http://www.vbulletin.com/features_project.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.77.130 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Achievo (in Open-Source web-based applications): http://www.achievo.org/ 193.144.71.108 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• activeCollab (Not free but one of the best. http://www.activecollab.com/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul286 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• GNome Planner http://live.gnome.org/Planner
• Planview http://www.planview.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planview-web (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• ProjectCollabHQ (Get Everybody On The Same Page! http://www.projectcollabhq.com/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by mg95762 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.18.48 (talk)

Can I add Business Collaborator?

Can I add this software to the list or must I write a page about it first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.241.216 (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please create an article first. Kuru ^talk 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What does "work management" mean?

What does "work management" mean?

I have the same question. Some of the software is listed as having "Work Management" capabilities but the Wikipedia entry for Work Management Software redirects to Project Management Software; "Project Management" is listed as a separate capability on this page! Surely this is a cyclic problem? How do I find out who first listed the category? Paul (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Office Project Portfolio Server is missing and Project Server manages documents

Microsoft Office Project Portfolio Server is a companion product to Microsoft Office Project Server. The combination of Microsoft Project Professional, Microsoft Office Project Server, and Microsoft Office Project Portfolio Server fulfills all of the criteria in this list. [1]

The stack is called Enterprise Project Management Solution [2] (Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 and SQL Server is part of the application stack).

Also, Microsoft Office Project Server does have Document Management capabilities. From their Data Sheet [3]:

"Enhance knowledge sharing. Centrally manage and track project-related information through Office Project Server 2007 and Windows SharePoint Services working together. Centralized document, risk, and issues management helps users collaborate to improve the quality of project deliverables."

Cyberguild (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning the vendor list, a proposition

One of the key issue discussed here is how to discriminate between major vendors and minor vendors (I am not speaking about open source software which are open for anyone who cares to look at what they are doing).

To my knowledge, there are 3 surveys that compare and select the most important software in the market place today :

• Gartner, "PPM Magic Quadrant" [PPM Magic Quadrant]
• Forrester, "IT PPM Wave" [IT PPM Wave]
• [BARC], "Project Management Software Systems" [Project Management Study]

All 3 surveys are not truly available publicly, but the list of software vendors that are reviewed can be found on the web relatively easily (see links).

Forrester is very conservative with its list (but has been only published in 2007, things have changed a lot since then), Gartner does include more vendors and University Osnabrück even more. Forrester and Gartner are really about IT PPM, and focus on the North American market, Osnabrück is more balanced and is based in Germany, Europe. I believe taking the vendors that are listed at least within 2 of the 3 surveys can be listed in a "premium" section, while other vendors are either minor or only covers part of a project management solution requirements.

Mathusael (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Major revision rolled back

A major change was made to this page with no discussion. (My personal preference is for the old style, MUCH easier to read), but in any case a major change such as this should be discussed first. The new version may have merits, but a MAJOR change like this needs some sort of community discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.154.42 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a major change as it is only a formatting change. This is just the common formatting for comparison article (Category:Software comparisons). The common formatting is much easier to read as you can sort by column. How can people give their opinion on a formatting they don't see? Ftiercel (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I rather liked the new/revised version; simple, sortable, and it incorporated the proprietary/os datum in a field as well. It also seems to be more compliant with other comparison articles. I'm not sure I concur with 'much easier to read'; is there any other reason you have for your personal preference? Kuru ^talk 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I primarily felt that the community that uses this page should have a chance to discuss prior to the formatting change. There are several things I like better about the current version, but they are all a matter of personal opinion... First, I prefer the color scheme, to me it gives the page a more interesting appearance. Second, the current format is more compact, giving several more lines of information (though the smaller text may be harder for some to read I suppose), Third, I prefer the separate tables for open source vs. Proprietary. Kuru has a good point on sorting, but given the data in the table the only column that makes much sense for sorting is the open source vs proprietary column. In any case, I am happy to go with the desire of the community here, and if that means using the other format fine. Only 3 people have commented so far, so perhaps people don't care that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.154.42 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The current table is more compact but if it's the only issue, the width can be changed using width:75%; for instance. I think sorting is useful also for the feature columns as someone may want to find all the project managers that have an issue tracker for her/his project for instance. Moreever, the sorted table can have new columns such as the operating system or the price. So, do we re-add the new/revised table ?

PS : You can add your signature at the end of your message adding ~~~~. Ftiercel (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I re-add the common formatting with a smaller width Ftiercel (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was on this page yesterday and used the data quite heavily. When I came back today I was surprised by the changes. The document is NOT easier to read, and does not separate the applications into Open Source vs. Proprietary -OR- Desktop vs. Web. I think this is a huge mistake. Both designations make the document much easier to do research with regard to a specific set of criteria. So if I were doing my research today, I would have to go to ALL open source software to find out which applications support a web based collaboration? Ridiculous...get rid of the little images if you want but please, put back the headings that tell us what we are looking at! I even joined Wiki today, and learned how to make this entry JUST to send you this message. Come on, use some common sense. --Showflash (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The little hour glass shaped button allows you to sort that column. Click on the web based column, then click on the os/prop button and the data is sorted by your criteria; or any other combination you desire. The "headings" still seem to be there; is there a display problem on your computer - what are you seeing? Kuru ^talk 01:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been also made to be compliant to the other comparison pages (Category:Software comparisons). Moreever, the new formatting is easier to extend with new criteria as it is sortable. Ftiercel (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate the content of this page into free and non-free software

It would be useful, as some users (like me) would not even look at the non-free software, thus save time :). IsmaelLuceno (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You can sort by column by clicking on the square. Ftiercel (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Columns of the table

Project management software page has project scheduling as the first feature of a project mangement software. Unfortunately, this is not a column header in this list. Can it be considered for addition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captone (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Software criterias

Some software in this list have only "Collaborative software" and "Web-based" crierias checked. Why are they on htis page if they don't match any project management specific criteria ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captone (talk • contribs) 08:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CoMindWork Web-based Project Management Software

This needs to be added at some point. I am not sure if it has a page or not but it looks like a valid contender in the market. I wish this would have been on the list last week when I was evaluating software.

http://www.comindwork.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyelijah (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Packages needing to be added

Each of these will need an article; only Serena currently has one (which desperately needs editing).

• Serena
• Projects On Demand
• Innotas
• Project Insight
• Daptiv

-- CasperGoodwood (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CasperGoodwood. Some important packages are missing on this page (and some should be removed, as they are not project management software, but collaborative software with project management features). Here are 2 other packages that need to be added:

• SAP Resource and Portfolio Management (RPM)
• Sciforma PSNext

Captone (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

API Column Add-On plus

API application programing interface as a column would be helpful. Which have it and what is it, [SOAP] or proprietary. Speaking about that, the sort option of this class is cool, but what about if software has both a proprietary and an open source version out there? How do you handle that for API entries? Please someone with the right hand and dealing with mixed open source and proprietary releases put in the [API] column and indicate how to multi-state or tristate these entries more so than now.

Wikiclass sortable though deserves kudos. Comment added by Agencius (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Safran and Proteus software

Why are Safran Project, Safran for Microsoft Project and Proteus not listed? www.safran.com, www.safranna.com.Nicholas Pisano (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I invite you to create an article for those products, and after that we can add them.--Jordiferrer (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Open Atrium

I suggest adding http://www.openatrium.com/ to the list. "Open Atrium is an open source software platform for building project management and collaboration applications. It is built on the open source framework Drupal." from openatrium.com --Ldwg (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OS platform for building PM Apps and not one PM Application. This is list of PM software. --Kaster (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That judgment is incorrectly made on insufficient data. The default installation of Open Atrium *is* one PM application. +1 for inclusion. --Gnassar (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way -- we don't prohibit any other PM software merely because it's expandable with third-party created modules. That is what Open Atrium allows also. No reason to exclude it. --Gnassar (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I have used an default instalation of open atrium as project management tool.Given the above discussion I renew my suggestion to include Open Atrium. --Ldwg (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Teambox

I've just added Teambox again, as an article was required to add it to the list, but I'm unable to create a new one, as editors says that it does not deserve an article on its own, even having notable links, like Techcrunch, the foremost web publication for technology news and analysis, and Expansion, a prestigious Spanish finance newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdepabloss (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again. No article means no list entry, the list is a navigational aid, not a place for advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

www.Brightwork.com

Perhaps someone could add this to the list. It appears to fall into this category. It appears to run as an add-on to SharePoint so deserves a stand-alone mention. This list is otherwise very good. AWHS (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You should probably think about writing the article first before you attempt to add it to the list. --Hm2k (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go here BrightWork_(software). I think that the company page demonstrates WP:N to the degree required. I have not seen the software but it appears to be a yes to all these categories. AWHS (talk)

I have added BrightWork (software) to the list and marked yes for all after looking at the software website. AWHS (talk)

Jira/ GreenHopper

Thoughts as to whether this list should include optional extras, for example Jira recently acquired GreenHopper [4], it now provides a tool that supports a range of methodologies. GreenHopper Add agile project management to any JIRA project. Whether you are a certified Scrum Master or just getting started with agile concepts, GreenHopper is the perfect tool for managing your backlog, planning sprints and tracking your team through the entire release process.. Together with Confluence and Jira This would appear to now cover the spectrum?

• Collaborative software Yes
• Issue tracking system Yes
• Scheduling Yes
• Project Portfolio Management Yes
• Resource Management Yes
• Document Management Yes
• Web-based Yes

Am currently doing an evaluation, so a list like this is great, but only if it is accurate.AWHS (talk)

Daptiv has been put up for WP:AfD

I just noticed that Daptiv has been put up for WP:AfD. Some of the references need work but I am starting to sense systematic commercial bias with the AfD's related to this page. AWHS (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rally

There is no entry for rally: http://www.rallydev.com/ Wadsworth (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PHProjekt

I put up a page not quite a month ago for PHProjekt, a project management tool available on many shared hosting providers, and it seems to have passed relevancy/notability muster. I was thinking of adding it to this page, and would normally Wikipedia:Be_bold, but it seems changes to this page get scrutinized unusually carefully, so I wanted to bring it up here first. Any objections? Gnassar (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, the only criteria is that the addition should have an existing article, and, of course, be project management software... Feel free to add. Kuru (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Which of these do Gantt Charts and Precedence Diagrams / Network Diagrams (aon/aoa)?

A lot of the software on this list can’t even supply a basic Gantt chart, and hardly any offer a Network diagram view for critical path, etc. A lot of the software on this list seems to amount to a cross between a calendar and a to-do list, yet calls itself project management software. It is a fundamental requirement to know whether any given software has the ability to create a Gantt chart and a Network diagram – if not, then no more time need be wasted on it. Ian Tindale (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague Sections

Anyone else thing the "Advanced Workflow System" and "Advanced Reporting and Analysis" columns are 1) vague and 2) extremely subjective?

Seems to me like the creators/owners of one of the 2-3 tools that have "Yes" in the workflow column added this themselves and just put yes for their tool without bothering to even research the competitors. I can make an argument for leaving in Reporting and Analytics (minus the subjective word advanced) in there as that is not vague and a legit component of most tools these days, but IMO "Advanced Workflow System" has got to go.

70.88.205.201 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In case we decide to keep these 2 new columns, I have 2 suggestions: First, the word "advanced" is certainly subjective, so I will remove that word from both columns. Second, many of the listed softwares probably have tools for "Workflow system" and "Reporting and Analysis", but no one has taken care to revise it. Therefore, we should better leave a Question Mark, and not a "No".--Jordiferrer (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the "No" rows are slowly filling up for the other pieces of software. I just added a yes under workflow for redmine and trac as they both support complex workflows using ticket states. I think leaving workflow column in is fine and it looks like, as usual, wikipedia is doing a good job of swapping out the inaccurate "No" rows that were undoubtedly added by one of those original 2 - 3 vendors for more correct rows. I would like to see the no rows swapped out for ? but that's a little tedious for me today :-) UmassThrower (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Roadmap

Dmol: The Roadmap product article is no longer marked for deletion. Can your removal of the Roadmap entry in this article be reverted? Or, would you recommend that I re-add the entry? Thank you. -Dave.j.clausen (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the article in question, and the subject pretty clearly does not meet our notability guidelines. It probably is best not to re-add this article to the list. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's back for deletion, so let's leave it for now.--Dmol (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Teamlab corrections

Hi. I'm new to wiki corrections so I wanted to ask here before I start editing. The information in the table about TeamLab is a little bit out of date. Namely, the "no" in the Scheduling section and the "no" in the Reporting and Analyses section. The credibility of the information can surely be proven if necessary. So the questions is - what steps do I need to take to apply the changes? Thank you. Thornberg (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.80.255.144 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why ChiliProject is not listed?

see: https://www.chiliproject.org/ 46.114.44.209 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason why VisionOne is not listed ?

2A01:E35:2EEA:3C0:58C5:D8EF:95CF:A4AD (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Frederic Gaurier, Medan, France

Is there are reason that FunctionFox is not included in this Comparison?

FunctionFox should be added to this comparison of Project Management Software