Planview® AdaptiveWork

Name: Planview® AdaptiveWork
Brand: Planview
Rating: 4.2 (1087 reviews)

Leader

Building the digital future of connected work.

Est 1989|Valuation $1.8B|Raised $3.1B

LinkedIn 97K|Website|Web traffic 223K|FTEs 1,300|HQ Austin, Texas, US

MarketsStrategic Portfolio Management (SPM)Business Process Management (BPM)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- AdaptiveWork versus Smartsheet: Smartsheet publishes pricing and offers a familiar spreadsheet paradigm, which can reduce adoption friction. AdaptiveWork competes where organizations require more formal governance, workflow rules, and portfolio-level controls. - AdaptiveWork versus Wrike: Wrike’s public pricing and trial model can facilitate faster evaluation. AdaptiveWork is often positioned for organizations with formal PMO/portfolio governance and complex cross-department permission needs. - AdaptiveWork versus Workfront: Workfront is commonly selected for marketing and creative operations; AdaptiveWork may be preferred when enterprise portfolio and resource management are the primary needs rather than creative workflow specialization.

Competitor perspectives (how competitors position themselves)

Smartsheet emphasizes flexible plans and publishes per-member pricing on its official pricing page.
Wrike publishes per-user pricing for entry and mid tiers and indicates enterprise tiers require contacting sales; Wrike also disclosed recent packaging and pricing adjustments.

	Planview AdaptiveWork	Smartsheet	Wrike
Starting Price	Not publicly listed on vendor site (vendor contact required)	Published per-member pricing for entry and mid tiers; enterprise pricing requires contacting the vendor	Published per-user pricing for entry and mid tiers; enterprise tiers require contacting the vendor
Primary use case	Enterprise PMO/PPM governance, cross-department workflows, resource/capacity-oriented oversight	Teams seeking a spreadsheet-like interface with automation and add-ons for portfolio capabilities	Teams needing structured work management with templates and configurable workflows; common in midmarket deployments
Key Strength	Extensive configurability and portfolio/resource orientation; governance patterns for cross-functional programs	Lower adoption friction for spreadsheet-familiar users, transparent entry pricing, large ecosystem	Broad feature set with transparent mid-tier positioning and strong task/project execution UX
Key Weakness	Perceived complexity, learning curve, price opacity, some complaints about scheduling/timekeeping	Can become expensive at scale with premium add-ons; governance depth varies by configuration	Seat packaging and flexibility concerns; advanced controls often often require higher tiers

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

AdaptiveWork versus Smartsheet: Smartsheet publishes pricing and offers a familiar spreadsheet paradigm, which can reduce adoption friction. AdaptiveWork competes where organizations require more formal governance, workflow rules, and portfolio-level controls.
AdaptiveWork versus Wrike: Wrike’s public pricing and trial model can facilitate faster evaluation. AdaptiveWork is often positioned for organizations with formal PMO/portfolio governance and complex cross-department permission needs.
AdaptiveWork versus Workfront: Workfront is commonly selected for marketing and creative operations; AdaptiveWork may be preferred when enterprise portfolio and resource management are the primary needs rather than creative workflow specialization.

Competitor perspectives (how competitors position themselves)

Smartsheet emphasizes flexible plans and publishes per-member pricing on its official pricing page.
Wrike publishes per-user pricing for entry and mid tiers and indicates enterprise tiers require contacting sales; Wrike also disclosed recent packaging and pricing adjustments.

	Planview AdaptiveWork	Smartsheet	Wrike
Starting Price	Not publicly listed on vendor site (vendor contact required)	Published per-member pricing for entry and mid tiers; enterprise pricing requires contacting the vendor	Published per-user pricing for entry and mid tiers; enterprise tiers require contacting the vendor
Primary use case	Enterprise PMO/PPM governance, cross-department workflows, resource/capacity-oriented oversight	Teams seeking a spreadsheet-like interface with automation and add-ons for portfolio capabilities	Teams needing structured work management with templates and configurable workflows; common in midmarket deployments
Key Strength	Extensive configurability and portfolio/resource orientation; governance patterns for cross-functional programs	Lower adoption friction for spreadsheet-familiar users, transparent entry pricing, large ecosystem	Broad feature set with transparent mid-tier positioning and strong task/project execution UX
Key Weakness	Perceived complexity, learning curve, price opacity, some complaints about scheduling/timekeeping	Can become expensive at scale with premium add-ons; governance depth varies by configuration	Seat packaging and flexibility concerns; advanced controls often often require higher tiers