The Best 20 Project Management Software for Architects

I chose Paymo because it offers a comprehensive feature package encompassing time tracking, project planning, and invoicing. For architects, this integrated approach is invaluable.

Firstly, time tracking is pivotal for architects as it enables them to gauge the exact amount of time spent on different project phases, ensuring accurate billing and helping evaluate workflow efficiency.

Secondly, project planning tools are essential in keeping architectural projects on track, mapping out every critical milestone, and ensuring timely deliveries.

Moreover, the invoicing feature streamlines the billing process. With architectural projects often spanning months, if not years, regular invoicing helps maintain steady cash flows and professional client relationships.

A standout feature that sets Paymo apart from other project management tools is its automated time-tracking capability. This feature elevates time tracking beyond the conventional practice of manually starting and stopping a timer when a task begins or ends. Instead, Paymo can autonomously record all desktop activities, eliminating the need to constantly monitor and adjust the timer.

Another feature often overlooked in many popular project management tools, yet especially beneficial for architects, is the capability to generate one-click invoices directly from timesheets. This ensures that billing clients become seamless and efficient, eliminating the need for additional time-consuming steps.

Take this example of Amelia, an architect eager to bring to life her vision for the “Hillside Retreat.” As her pencil sketched and her design tools came alive, Paymo discreetly tallied her hours. She plotted milestones, from sketches to scaffolding, distributing tasks with a few clicks. 

Amelia, without missing a beat, turned her tracked hours into a crisp invoice as the month wrapped up.

However, it’s worth noting that Paymo has its limitations. Its most significant shortfall is in its communication features. While it doesn’t boast an internal chat system, users can add comments to tasks, discussions to projects, and customize notification settings. This gap can be lessened if your team already operates on communication platforms like Slack.

If you believe communication is paramount, then Basecamp might be a better alternative. Basecamp excels in offering a platform that makes it remarkably easy to connect and collaborate. Yet, it’s worth mentioning that while Basecamp shines in the communication domain, it needs to catch up in areas like customization and advanced time-tracking features.

Additionally, Paymo may not take the lead regarding user intuitiveness. While some find it user-friendly, others, especially non-technical people, believe it needs to match the intuitive experience of platforms like Asana or Monday. Teams valuing a straightforward interface might lean towards Asana or Smartsheet. Yet, Paymo balances this with a dedicated support team and many resources to aid its users.

Monograph ranks as the second most significant software I tested, aligning well with the nuances of the architecture industry.

One distinguishing feature of Monograph is that it has been designed with architects and engineers in mind. As a result, it adeptly merges time tracking, planning, and invoicing into a unified system.

Compared to Paymo, it is similar in many ways. However, it lags on some features and could be better, especially in time tracking and invoicing areas. This isn’t inherently due to strategic missteps or flawed design but rather its relative youth in the market.

While Monograph’s journey commenced in 2019, Paymo boasts an additional decade of development experience. In this analogy, Monograph is the promising newcomer on the block, brimming with potential. Its placement as the runner-up on our list underscores this.

What further distinguishes Monograph is the relentless dedication of its developers to refine and expand its capabilities. A testament to this commitment is their recent update in October 2023, where they rolled out five significant enhancements in the invoicing segment of their software.

A drawback of the Monograph tool is its need for more transparency in pricing. Even after scouring their pricing page, you won’t find definitive figures in clear dollar terms. This obscurity raises significant trust concerns, placing it second on our list. The absence of explicitly stated prices allows for preferential pricing, meaning you could pay more than others based on specific characteristics.

No need to scour the Internet for the prices—we’ve got you covered. To use Monograph, you will have to choose one of the two plans, Track and Grow:

• Track costs $25/user/month if paid annually and includes time tracking and invoicing for up to 20 projects.
• Grow costs $45/user/month if paid annually for unlimited projects and project profitability for a minimum of 5 users. That means you’ll pay a minimum of $2,700/year.

We’ll rate Monograph very high in terms of pricing.

While the planning component and user experience are commendable, users’ primary grievances in their reviews pertain to invoicing and, more predominantly, time tracking.

These concerns stem from an underwhelming timer functionality, a cumbersome and less-than-friendly interface during time tracking, and the absence of a mobile app to facilitate time tracking while on-site.

Also, what I’ve noticed when testing the app is the fact that you are limited to project phases, meaning that you’ll invoice and track time in terms of the template’s phases (e.g., Proposal, Pre-Design, Schematic Design, Design Development) and not tasks, which are not user-generated unless they have admin rights to add tasks and milestones. (I must say, it took me a while to navigate the interface just to add a task—ugh!)

What sets Asana apart from other tools is the commonly accepted notion that it boasts one of the most user-friendly interfaces, marked by its simplicity. While it may not rival the customization capabilities of platforms like Monday, it can be tailored to suit the needs of architects.

Its standout features are its aesthetically pleasing design and user-centric approach. However, it’s worth noting that its popularity cuts both ways; while many users laud its strengths, a significant number also voice their grievances about these things. Thus, it’s wise to approach Asana’s acclaim with circumspection.

While Asana can be adapted for the architectural domain, it has substantial constraints. Notably, navigating through a project hierarchy can take time and effort. There’s no visual representation indicating your current position within the project’s structure – only the title of the preceding hierarchical level is displayed. This limitation needs to be present in tools like Monograph or Paymo and can pose significant challenges for architects. One little delighter is adding weekly project updates:

Also, limiting a task to one assignee restricts collaborative efforts, potentially causing oversights in multifaceted tasks like blueprint finalization, which requires input from architects, sustainability experts, structural engineers, and interior designers.

Unlike Asana’s one-assignee limitation, Paymo allows a task to be assigned to multiple users, facilitating smoother teamwork and ensuring everyone involved is aligned and accountable. This specific disadvantage was crucial in ranking Asana just third on this list.

Its visually appealing interface and remarkable customization features set Monday.com apart. It’s ideal for architects who need help finding a project management platform tailored to their requirements. In terms of customization, it’s similar to Clickup. However, Clickup ranks lower as its extensive features can become daunting for users.

Monday can be sculpted like clay to accommodate some of the non-standard requirements of architects. It is among the most popular project management tools, yet its emphasis needs to be more honed on time tracking, planning, and invoicing as niche tools that rank higher, such as Monograph and Paymo.

However, while excelling in customization, Monday.com often dims its light with its pricing model for many users. A consistent worry is the ballooning cost as additional team members are brought on board.

For small architectural teams who want to expand by adding more team members like landscape architects, construction administrators, CAD technicians, and so on, the jump from a $300 to $1,200 tag can profoundly dent the budget as you harness its full array of features and add more users, the expenses mount.

For the budget-conscious who balk at such a price increase, considering alternatives like Clickup might be a wise move. Much like Monday.com, Clickup offers an even deeper level of customization features, which, while vast, can verge on overwhelming and present a steeper learning curve. However, it presents these capabilities at a significantly more affordable price point.

BQE Core is best for architects who integrate their accounting and customer relationship management within their project management software, centralizing these functions in one unified platform.

The most crucial issue with BQE Core is its pervasive sluggishness and glitchy behavior. Many users experience a noticeable lag after almost every click, reminiscent of navigating a decade-old government website—the system’s response time, whether page loading or searching for information, is painfully delayed.

Sometimes, searches even fail to yield any results at all. These program errors and glitches are not rectified promptly by the development team. Generally, CORE’s performance is erratic; at times, it operates much slower than one would expect from modern software.

Users have also reported instances where the program crashes frequently, especially when needing to track time. There have been situations where changes made are not registered by the system, leading to discrepancies in logged hours without any notification to the user.

Also, BQE Core’s time-tracking features fall short for many users. There’s a notable absence of stopwatch features, which are invaluable for multitasking architects. In other platforms like Paymo, architects frequently utilize this function to seamlessly start, pause, and resume tracking, with the system automatically logging these intervals.

However, if integrating accounting and CRM within your project management tool is a priority, these shortcomings might be more tolerable. While these features may not match the finesse of specialized tools, BQE Core could still be a viable solution if those combined capabilities are essential for your operations.

ArchiSnapper is best for architects frequently working on-site, facilitating immediate decision-making. The platform enables the creation of field reports and punch lists, supports on-site project inspections, and provides comprehensive access to project reports, statistics, and charts. Features like template checklists and blueprints enhance the experience, making site observations, inspections, and report generation seamless and efficient.

ArchiSnapper isn’t primarily a project management tool. Established in 2012, ArchiSnapper was developed to cater to an architectural studio’s need for more straightforward field reporting and punch list applications.

In 2021, It was acquired by Deltek, a comprehensive project life-cycle platform. Architects can use both tools in tandem, and while this combination might be pricier, they complement each other effectively.

Though ArchiSnapper executes its intended functions effectively, its lack of independence and comprehensiveness as a standalone tool is a notable limitation. This means users might need to invest in multiple platforms to address all aspects of their project management needs, which can complicate workflows and increase costs.

Its interface is in desperate need of a modern design.

What distinguishes Wrike from other project management tools is its capability to set up dependent tasks, establishing clear interdependencies. For instance, before a CAD Technician can finalize a detailed drawing in an architectural project, a Design Architect must complete the preliminary design.

Similarly, an Interior Designer might rely on the Project Architect’s finalized structural plans to start their work. Wrike’s interdependency features ensure tasks are completed logically, preventing bottlenecks and ensuring smooth project progression for architectural teams.

While tools higher up on our list, such as Paymo or Monograph, also feature task dependencies, it’s evident that Wrike’s developers have given special attention to refining this aspect, enhancing its functionality and user experience.

This visual mapping of tasks holds good value for architectural teams, especially those diving deep into the technical aspects of design. While it might not be the go-to for every architectural outfit, it’s a considerable asset for those steeped in technical intricacies.

Given its complex design, Wrike is best tailored for power users or those with a technical bent who can exploit its full prowess. Conversely, teams with less tech-savvy members might grapple with its intricacies.

In such cases, options like Asana, renowned for its user-friendly interface, or Basecamp, celebrated for its clean design, offer a less convoluted user journey than more detailed platforms.

The customer support dimension also has room for improvement. For comparison, ClickUp, despite its dense feature set and vast customization capabilities, often receives acclaim for its outstanding customer assistance.

It has multiple project views, of which the Chart view is exemplified:

Deltek Ajera leans more towards an ERP than traditional project management software. It’s best used for handling complex architectural projects necessitating coordinated management across various departments such as finance, HR, and procurement.

Its strengths are centralizing data, optimizing resources, and enhancing operational efficiency. It’s ideal for architecture firms eyeing growth, broadening their service range, and needing stringent compliance, comprehensive reporting, and cross-functional analytics.

Deltek Ajera, established in 1983, stands as one of the veterans in the market, bringing with it a blend of advantages and disadvantages. Its enduring presence signals that it’s consistently met specific needs, a feat not achieved by all in the ever-evolving project management realm. For instance, tools like Producteev and Streber have been discontinued despite their initial promise.

However, a key disadvantage of Deltek Ajera, a consequence of its longstanding tenure, is that it can feel clunky and somewhat outdated compared to newer, more intuitive tools.

This long-established system is notably recognized for its steeper learning curve, particularly for users familiar with the more intuitive interfaces of modern software. In contrast, Asana stands out for its intuitiveness.

Monday excels in customization, while Paymo leads in automated time tracking and invoicing features.

If you are one of those architects who really need a Gantt chart in their professional life, then TeamGantt might be the best thing for you. TeamGantt primarily centers on Gantt charts but expands its capabilities to include resource management and collaboration features.

It’s among the most user-friendly tools, boasting a drag-and-drop interface. It’s best tailored for smaller teams handling modest-sized projects where seamless task transition between team members is essential.

TeamGantt garners some of the most favorable public reviews among its user base, with few detractors presenting solid critiques. While it excels in many areas, there is room for improvement in its budgeting functionalities. Those requiring a heavier emphasis on budgeting might find Paymo a more suitable choice.

Also, as projects increase in complexity, TeamGantt may exhibit glitches and inconsistencies, which is why it’s particularly recommended for smaller architectural teams. Notably, the most common feedback point of contention among its users is the pricing aspect. 

The pricing structure of TeamGantt poses a challenge for some users, especially given the significant price leap from the free to Standard tiers. This discrepancy is even more noticeable considering TeamGantt’s strategy to appeal to a broad audience searching for a ‘free Gantt chart maker.’

While the free version is an enticing gateway, transitioning to a paid plan might cause budgetary concerns for those initially drawn by the cost-free offering. A notable alteration in their pricing model now places a cap on the number of projects each project manager can oversee, presenting difficulties for smaller firms that rely on just one or two project leaders to manage multiple smaller projects.

If managing documents and files is your primary concern, and you also need project management capabilities, then Newforma might be your perfect match. As they articulate it, the essence of their product is a human-centered information management system.

We know the many documents juggled during the architectural design and execution process. Take, for instance, the development of a commercial complex: from preliminary sketches to detailed blueprints, client revisions to municipality approvals, and material specifications to contractor agreements. The paper trail is vast and intricate. Newforma’s emphasis on efficient document management is a nod to these complexities, striving to streamline and simplify the process for architects.

Its advanced search functionality is the standout feature that sets Newforma apart from its competitors. In my research, a recurring grievance among users of popular tools like Basecamp or Wrike was their lackluster search capabilities.

Newforma, on the other hand, operates on an entirely different scale. It allows users to search through everything seamlessly – emails, PDF attachments, drawings, ZIP folders, archived data, and more – regardless of location.

Remarkably, this includes content embedded within drawings. For example, imagine an architect recalling a specific detail mentioned in a past drawing but unsure which version or document contained it.

It could be a unique material specification or a specialized construction technique. Instead of laboriously sifting through countless files or versions, with Newforma, they can input relevant keywords or terms, and the system will promptly locate the embedded content within the drawing.

This capability can be a game-changer, significantly reducing time spent searching and increasing the efficiency of the design and review process.

However, Newforma’s search and document management prowess comes with its own challenges. Users often cite the platform’s need for intuitiveness as a downside.

The common feedback is that the tool requires too many steps and excessive clicks to accomplish even basic tasks, making navigation more cumbersome than some competitors.

Another significant drawback of Newforma is its sluggish performance. Users consistently report experiencing delays, often waiting up to 10 seconds or more after clicking a button before seeing any response.

Newforma’s pricing often emerges as a point of contention, especially among smaller firms that might find the cost steep. Although some users feel the features justify the expense, others regard the pricing as high, especially considering the software’s clunkiness.

The expectation for many is a more intuitive interface, given the cost per seat, but Newforma occasionally falls short in this regard.