The Best 20 Project Management Software for Engineers

I chose Paymo because it offers a comprehensive feature package encompassing time tracking, project planning, and invoicing. For engineers, this integrated approach is invaluable. Let’s dive a bit deeper and see why. 

Imagine an engineering team working on a bridge construction project. Time tracking allows the engineering team to record the time spent on each phase, such as design, material procurement, and construction.

Suppose the team notices that the design phase is taking longer than expected. In that case, they can investigate and address the issues, such as the need for additional resources or training in specific design software.

Planning features in project management software are essential for engineers, enabling them to efficiently organize and execute smaller projects, like designing a custom circuit board, by precisely scheduling each development, testing, and production phase to ensure timely delivery and quality compliance.

For engineers, invoicing features in project management software are particularly crucial, as seen in projects like a custom home automation system installation, where generating accurate invoices for design, programming, and installation time directly from the software enhances billing efficiency and strengthens client confidence.

Paymo combines all three essential elements—time tracking, project planning, and invoicing—into a comprehensive package that caters well to the needs of engineers.

This integration means that an engineer can effortlessly create an invoice with just one click at the end of a project. This invoice will comprehensively include all the activities undertaken throughout the project, from initial planning to final execution, ensuring accurate billing and a clear, transparent record of the work completed.

From an engineer’s perspective, a standout feature of Paymo that distinguishes it from other project management tools is its automated time-tracking capability.

This feature significantly enhances the traditional approach of manually starting and stopping task timers. Paymo is designed to automatically record all desktop activities pertinent to an engineering project, freeing engineers from the need to manage the timer constantly.

However, Paymo’s primary limitation lies in the realm of communication capabilities. Unlike platforms with integrated chat systems, Paymo relies on task comments, project discussions, and customizable notifications for team interaction. This approach can work effectively if supplemented with external communication tools like Slack, but it’s not ideal for teams where seamless communication is a priority. In such cases, Basecamp emerges as a stronger alternative.

When evaluating user-friendliness, Paymo’s reception is varied. While some users appreciate its interface, others, particularly those without technical backgrounds, find it less intuitive than platforms like Asana. Teams that prioritize a straightforward, user-friendly experience might prefer Asana.

However, it’s important to note that Paymo compensates for this with robust support services and numerous resources to assist its users, a significant advantage for teams requiring extra guidance.

From an engineering standpoint, Asana primarily distinguishes itself in the project management tool landscape through its highly user-friendly interface, renowned for its simplicity and ease of use. This aspect is particularly beneficial for streamlining workflows and reducing the learning curve, which is crucial in engineering environments.

Although it might offer a different level of customization than platforms like Monday, Asana is adaptable enough to meet the specific requirements of most teams. Its ability to balance simplicity with sufficient customization options makes it viable for engineering teams seeking an efficient and straightforward project management solution.

From an engineering perspective, Asana’s key strengths lie in its aesthetically pleasing design and user-centric approach, which can be advantageous in creating an engaging and efficient work environment. However, its popularity and user base exhibit a dual nature.

While a large segment of users praise its design and usability, a notable faction also expresses dissatisfaction with these very aspects. In engineering, where functionality often precedes form, this divide in user opinion might be less detrimental.

Even with its detractors, the user-centric design could still significantly enhance productivity and user experience in engineering teams. Therefore, when considering Asana for engineering projects, it’s advisable to weigh its acclaimed features with a practical mindset, understanding that its design-focused approach might actually align well with the needs of a streamlined and effective engineering workflow.

Asana’s extensive range of integrations is another thing that sets it apart in the realm of project management tools, a feature that’s particularly advantageous in engineering disciplines. Engineers typically rely on various tools and software for different aspects of their work, such as CAD software for design, simulation tools for testing, and various communication and documentation platforms.

Asana’s ability to integrate with a wide array of these tools means that engineers can streamline their workflows, ensuring seamless data transfer and communication across different platforms.

Asana’s expansive integration capabilities offer a distinct edge over Paymo, even though it ranks higher on this list. Its integration options may not be as extensive or versatile as Asana’s.

However, to leverage this advantage in Asana, you need to confirm that the integration you need is among the 250+ available, which can be challenging, as Asana does not currently offer a search feature for its integrations, requiring users to browse through the list manually.

Asana’s restriction of only one assignee per task can present a significant challenge in engineering contexts, where collaborative efforts and shared responsibilities are often the norm.

In engineering projects, tasks frequently require the input and expertise of multiple team members, and the inability to assign a task to more than one person can lead to inefficiencies and communication gaps.

For instance, consider a scenario in an engineering project where a task involves a component’s design and analysis. This task naturally falls under the purview of both a design engineer and a structural analyst. In an ideal project management setup, the task would be jointly assigned to both professionals, ensuring clear responsibility and fostering collaborative problem-solving.

However, with Asana’s one-assignee limitation, the task can only be officially assigned to one of these engineers, which could lead to confusion over responsibility, as the unassigned engineer might not receive timely updates or feel equally accountable for the task’s completion. As a result, crucial steps in the task might be delayed or overlooked, potentially impacting the project’s overall timeline and quality.

In engineering, where tasks are often interdisciplinary and require the concerted efforts of multiple team members, the inability to reflect this collaborative dynamic in the project management tool can be a significant drawback, affecting both workflow efficiency and project outcomes.

LiquidPlanner offers engineers a robust project management solution with predictive forecasting, real-time risk alerts, and dynamic change adaptation. It enhances their ability to plan accurately, manage deadlines effectively, and respond swiftly to project fluctuations.

These features are not commonly found in most project management tools. While not all engineers may require these advanced capabilities, for those who do, they prove extremely valuable, significantly contributing to why LiquidPlanner ranks highly on our list for engineering project management solutions.

Diverging from the rigid timelines of traditional project management tools, it utilizes an intelligent scheduling engine that adeptly accounts for uncertainties, dependencies, and resource availability. This advanced system enables the dynamic scheduling of assignments and tasks, making it a standout choice for managing complex projects where variables and conditions are in constant flux.

LiquidPlanner’s drawbacks include a notable learning curve for new users, necessitating full training to utilize the program. For instance, recognizing completed work can be challenging without knowing precisely where to look. Additionally, from a design and UI perspective, some elements could be improved to enhance the platform’s overall usability and user experience.

Moreover, LiquidPlanner tends to be more expensive, particularly for larger teams or multiple project management, compared to alternatives like Paymo and ClickUp. This cost difference is noteworthy when considering budget constraints, as both Paymo and ClickUp generally offer similar functionalities at a more affordable price point.

Timesheet area in LiquidPlanner

Zoho One, a suite of over 40 integrated business and productivity applications, including Zoho Projects, could be highly beneficial for engineers, particularly if they require a broad range of tools.

It provides solutions for project management and CRM, finance, HR, and more, offering a unified platform for various business needs. This could streamline processes and improve efficiency, especially in a multidisciplinary engineering environment where diverse functionalities are needed.

Zoho Projects, a key component of the Zoho business suite focusing on project management, isn’t necessarily unique in its offerings, but it is often praised for its user-friendly interface.

User reviews are mixed: while many commend its usability, others point out shortcomings, so it’s advisable to consider these perspectives cautiously. The tool seems more favorable for power users, who appreciate its functionalities, as opposed to newcomers to project management, who might find it less intuitive.

Time logging in Zoho Projects is somewhat cumbersome and could be more intuitive, falling short compared to Paymo, which is known for its excellent time-tracking features.

Furthermore, Zoho Projects, like some competitors such as BQE Core and Wrike, faces criticism for its customer support. This contrasts with the highly praised customer service of LiquidPlanner, Paymo, and ClickUp.

Compared to its competitors, Zoho Projects is priced reasonably, leaning towards the more affordable end of the spectrum. Additionally, the cost for the entire Zoho One suite is considered good value, given the extensive range of features and tools it provides access to, making it an attractive option for those seeking a comprehensive set of business and project management applications at a competitive price.

Jira is best for software engineers and developers, offering powerful issue and bug-tracking capabilities, essential for teams needing effective prioritization and management of tasks.

Its flexibility in categorizing tasks as bugs, features, or stories helps assess scope and effort, supporting agile methodologies perfectly. Jira is handy for sprint planning, providing all the necessary features for efficient ticket management in a software development environment.

A key aspect that sets Jira apart is its excellent integration capabilities with a wide range of development and collaboration tools. This includes seamless connections with popular platforms like Slack for messaging and Salesforce for CRM, among many others, enhancing its utility in diverse software development environments.

However, Jira does have notable drawbacks: most reviews and feedback come from software developers, indicating a solid IT-centric design, as one user noted in their review: “It seems like the Jira system was designed by IT people for IT people.”

This focus on IT-centric functionality presents challenges for non-engineers. For instance, a user from a non-engineering background mentioned their struggle with understanding Jira’s request sequencing, highlighting the steep learning curve for those unfamiliar with such systems.

Regarding user reviews, Jira was rated as the most challenging among the 20 tools I tested for this review, even more so than LiquidPlanner, Zoho, Teamwork, or ClickUp. Jira’s complexity can be a significant barrier, particularly for inexperienced project management software users.

Proper training is often necessary to fully utilize its features, which can be time-consuming. Many users find it overwhelming and complicated, especially when setting up projects and workflows. For new users, it may take a substantial period, possibly 2 to 3 months, to become comfortable and proficient in operating the system, indicating a steep learning curve that can impact efficiency, particularly in the initial stages of adoption.

A significant downside of Jira, particularly in larger organizations or when extensively using add-ons, is its cost. The basic package might seem reasonably priced, but the need for additional plugins for extra functionalities can significantly increase expenses.

In contrast, Paymo or ClickUp offer more cost-effective solutions, often including many of Jira’s functionalities only through paid plugins. This often makes Jira a less viable option for companies with limited budgets.

The cumulative cost of these plugins can transform an already expensive software into an even costlier solution, making it accessible mainly to organizations with substantial financial resources.

Timeline view in Jira

If you’re an engineer seeking a comprehensive suite of task management features and a broad range of overall functionalities and are not concerned about the learning curve, then exploring Teamwork as a project management tool could be a beneficial option.

Let’s take the example of an engineering consultancy project to design a custom manufacturing process. Engineers must adeptly manage and juggle various tasks, from initial assessment to design, procurement, software integration, testing, training, and client communication.

Teamwork’s robust feature set can efficiently handle this complexity by offering tools for detailed task scheduling, resource allocation, time tracking, and team collaboration, which in turn leads to clear task delineation, progress monitoring, and effective communication among team members, ensuring that each phase of the project is executed cohesively and efficiently, which is critical in such multifaceted engineering projects.

However, Teamwork’s extensive feature set leads to two significant drawbacks: it can be slower and occasionally unresponsive compared to other apps and presents a steep learning curve for new users, potentially delaying their adaptation to the system.

This complexity made some users find it unsuitable, as echoed in feedback such as “The whole system is very disjointed and quite frankly, I really don’t like it,” and “Just because it has many features doesn’t necessarily make it superior.”

Therefore, unless you’re prepared to navigate its complexities, you might consider simpler alternatives like ActiveCollab, especially if technical intricacies are not your forte.

The time tracking feature receives high praise for its effectiveness from many user reviews; it’s similar to Paymo’s but probably not on the same level. Although it lacks automated time tracking, the real strength of this tool is evident when integrated with its dashboard feature, where it provides a clear and analytical overview of projects and plans.

The overview allows you to gauge your firm’s capacity swiftly with just a glance. By quickly viewing the dashboard, you can effectively comprehend your team’s workload, availability, and overall capacity, which is crucial for engineers.

Timesheet view in Teamwork

For engineers, Accelo stands out for its capabilities in managing retainers, such as tracking monthly budgets, rolling budgets over subsequent months, and handling other retainer-based tracking needs.

These features are particularly beneficial for engineering firms or consultants who work on retainer agreements with their clients, ensuring efficient budget management and service delivery continuity.

Consider a civil engineering firm working on a retainer basis with a municipality for ongoing infrastructure maintenance in a specific scenario. Using Accelo, the firm can track its monthly budget allocations for different projects, such as bridge inspections or road repairs.

If a month’s budget is underutilized, the funds can be efficiently rolled over to the next month, ensuring optimal resource use. This streamlined financial tracking, combined with Accelo’s cohesive project management features, allows the firm to maintain consistent service quality and financial control, which is crucial in long-term engineering projects with fluctuating demands and priorities.

A drawback of Accelo, particularly from an engineer’s perspective, is its dated infrastructure. Despite its visual updates, the software lacks many modern user experience enhancements, similar to early 2000s software with a superficial UI facelift. While it appears more modern, its functionality hasn’t kept pace with current standards, which might hinder efficiency and user satisfaction, especially for engineers accustomed to more contemporary, intuitive software solutions.

Suboptimal user experience in Accelo is particularly evident in its time-tracking feature. Engineers, who often require precise and efficient time tracking for project billing and management, might find the system cumbersome or less intuitive than more modern solutions like Paymo or ActiveCollab.  

Accelo’s performance is marred by occasional bugs that can be quite concerning, leading to doubts about its overall reliability. While these issues might not be constant, their occurrence can be particularly problematic and frustrating for users, including engineers, who rely on the stability and dependability of their project management software for efficient and accurate work management.

In addition to its occasional bugs, Accelo’s pricing structure poses a significant challenge, especially for new or small companies. It is considered an expensive platform, with the cost being particularly burdensome for small start-up practices.

Furthermore, some users have reported substantial increases in license fees, even doubling in cases where fewer than five licenses are used. This steep hike in pricing, seen as disproportionate even considering general inflationary trends in SaaS solutions, can be particularly off-putting and has led to dissatisfaction among long-term users who feel their loyalty hasn’t been valued.

Due to its sophisticated resource management and task dependency features, Celoxis is best for engineers managing large-scale projects with interlinked tasks and resources.

For example, an engineer working on a multi-phase urban development project can utilize Celoxis to oversee the intricate dependencies between tasks like land surveying, zoning approvals, and construction phases. Celoxis effectively coordinates resources like staffing and materials, ensuring they are allocated efficiently across these interdependent tasks. This ability to manage complex dependencies and resource allocation in real time is crucial for the successful and timely completion of such large-scale engineering projects.

Celoxis stands out for its stability and smooth operation, a stark contrast to platforms like Accelo, which is known to have bugs affecting its overall reliability. This reliability, coupled with Celoxis’ numerous functionalities for optimized workflow and its simple, elegant interface, makes it a more dependable choice for engineers seeking a smooth and efficient tool for managing complex projects.

However, Celoxis does have its drawbacks. The notification system can be chaotic, with duplicate notifications and communication gaps. Additionally, there is a notable learning curve due to the vast array of features it offers, which can be overwhelming for new users.

The time logging and timesheet functionalities are also reported to be overly detailed and complex. In contrast, for less complex projects, alternatives like Paymo or ActiveCollab, known for their intuitive interfaces and simpler functionalities, might offer a smoother user experience for projects that are not too complex.

Linear is the ideal project management tool for modern software engineers, particularly in bug tracking. It’s known for its ease of use and simplicity compared to other task management tools.

With a fast, carefully designed, and engineer-friendly UI/UX, it efficiently manages software development tasks and bug tracking. Its functionality-focused approach makes it highly praised by software engineers who value productivity.

Its standout feature is its robust keyboard shortcut functionality, enabling swift task navigation and management. For software engineers, this means efficiency in bug tracking and project management. For instance, they can use shortcuts like “T” to create a new task, “/” to search for related issues, “C” to add comments, and “M” to assign tasks to milestones. These shortcuts save time and boost productivity in technical work.

Linear’s strength lies in its simplicity and user-friendliness, making it ideal for small to medium-sized teams. However, this simplicity comes at the cost of customization options. On the other hand, Jira offers a rich feature set, but it can be complex and expensive, making it better suited for larger organizations with specific needs.

While Linear can track multiple projects, certain users have mentioned that its absence of project boards can make project management more challenging than other tools.

ActiveCollab stands out with its intuitive design and minimalist interface, enhancing the user experience significantly. This platform offers simplicity and functionality, with a rich feature set that includes essential tools like task dependencies, estimates, and time tracking without overwhelming the user.

Its design philosophy balances aesthetics and functionality, providing an approachable yet sophisticated toolset. ActiveCollab suits teams and engineers seeking a straightforward, user-friendly interface for prioritizing projects and tasks.

It’s ideal for those engineers new to project management tools because it blends simplicity and power. Many users appreciate the platform’s user-friendly interface, minimalist style, and collaboration features, facilitating seamless teamwork and effective communication.

The platform’s commitment to continuous improvement, with regular updates and new features, is also a significant plus​.

However, there are limitations. ActiveCollab’s streamlined experience compromises customization options, which might be a drawback for some. Its design allows a task to be assigned to only one individual at a time, which can be challenging for projects requiring inputs from multiple team members. This setup can lead to frequent reassignments and manual management of due dates, adding complexity to project management.

Regarding pricing, ActiveCollab offers a mid-range solution that balances affordability with premium features. However, some quirks in its pricing structure, like the lack of time report generation in basic packages and invoicing capabilities only available in the highest-priced package, can be limiting. This contrasts with Paymo, which offers invoicing even in its free package.