# CAST Highlight vs Planview Portfolios for C-level reporting on application portfolio health: which gives enterprise teams cleaner visibility without pulling architects into every conversation?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">I'm comparing CAST Highlight and Planview Portfolios for C-level reporting on application portfolio health. One thing worth naming up front, because it shapes the whole comparison: these two tools measure different kinds of "portfolio." CAST Highlight reports on the technical health of the applications themselves, while Planview Portfolios reports on the health of the project and investment portfolio around them. Both live in the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/application-portfolio-management">Application Portfolio Management category</a>, but which one fits depends on what your executives actually want to see.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/cast-highlight/reviews"><strong>CAST Highlight</strong></a>: Scans source code across the portfolio and rolls the results into executive-friendly dashboards on cloud readiness, technical debt, and software health, which is closest to "application portfolio health" in the literal sense. Reviewers note the dashboards are readable enough for non-technical stakeholders, so architects aren't dragged into every review; the catch is it needs access to source code to produce the numbers.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/planview-portfolios/reviews"><strong>Planview Portfolios</strong></a>: Strong on role-based dashboards and automated status reporting for governance and executive decision-making, with reviewers valuing the single-source-of-truth reporting. Just note its "portfolio health" is about projects, investments, and resources rather than the technical state of the applications, and several reviewers flag a cumbersome interface and complex initial setup.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true"></p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">So the honest answer may be that these aren't quite substitutes: if the C-suite question is "how healthy are our applications," CAST is the closer fit, and if it's "how healthy is our project and investment portfolio," Planview is. For teams that have used either for exec reporting, which gave you cleaner visibility without pulling architects into every conversation, and did you end up needing both to tell the full story?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 21 days ago
- Author title: Marketing
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;CAST Highlight gave us the cleaner executive view when the conversation was specifically about application health, because the dashboards translated technical debt and cloud readiness without needing an architect to interpret every metric. Planview was more useful for investment and delivery governance, so we still needed both views to tell the full story.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 13 days ago
- Author title: Marketer





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4