Acuity PPM’s biggest strength is how effectively it brings structure and visibility to portfolio management, particularly through its financial tracking and work intake capabilities.
The financial tracking features gave us a much clearer view of budget allocation, forecast vs. actuals, and overall investment across the portfolio. This significantly improved decision-making at a senior level, as we were able to move from fragmented spreadsheets to a single, reliable source of truth.
The work intake process was another standout. It allowed us to standardise how initiatives were proposed, assessed, and prioritised, which reduced ambiguity and ensured that all work aligned more closely with strategic objectives. Compared to our previous approach, this saved considerable time and improved governance.
From a stakeholder perspective, the ability to present a consolidated, real-time view of the portfolio was extremely valuable. Senior leaders could easily see what was in progress, what was coming next, and how resources were being allocated—without needing to pull together multiple reports manually.
The platform itself is intuitive, and once embedded, it becomes a central hub for portfolio activity. Performance was reliable, pricing is excellent and we saw good ROI through improved transparency, better prioritisation, and reduced manual reporting effort.
Finally, the support and onboarding experience was very strong. The team were responsive and Tim's support has been invaluable. We were up and running quickly and support was always available when maturing our setup. There have been multiple product feature releases over the past year which truly add value to the user experience.
Overall, Acuity PPM played a key role in maturing our portfolio management capability and driving more informed, data-led decisions. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
While Acuity PPM is a strong platform overall, there are a few areas where we found limitations, particularly given the nature of our operating model.
The resourcing functionality, although well-designed, didn’t fully align with our business setup. In an environment going through significant organisational transformation, with high turnover and frequently shifting roles, it became difficult to maintain accurate resource data. This isn’t necessarily a flaw in the tool itself, but it does highlight that the model works best in organisations with more stable structures. Greater flexibility or lighter-touch resourcing options could make it more adaptable in these scenarios.
We also found that maintaining detailed project schedules within the platform could be challenging for some users, especially for larger or more complex plans. While the scheduling capability has improved significantly over time, there is still an opportunity to enhance usability, particularly around creating simple, rolled-up views that can be easily shared with senior stakeholders. The addition of MS Project import/export is a strong step forward and helps mitigate this, but more native summary views would add value.
Another area for improvement is role-based access control. Currently, access can feel a bit broad in some cases. For example, we would have benefited from more granular permissions, such as enabling read-only access at an individual project level for certain business support functions, rather than granting visibility across the full portfolio.
Overall, these are not fundamental issues, but areas where increased flexibility and usability would make the platform even more effective across a wider range of organisational contexts. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
