Does BoardWalk have a RAG status or a project health score?

BoardWalk reports the underlying facts instead of combining them into one health score: verified requirements beside total requirements, signed gates beside total gates, and unresolved findings by class. Teams can review each input without reverse-engineering an average or color.

How is BoardWalk different from Planview or Broadcom Clarity?

Planview and Clarity go deeper in resource booking, requisitions, chargebacks and portfolio optimization. BoardWalk focuses on evidence-led governance: requirements resolve against a pinned commit, test results bind at the level the evidence supports, recorded scenarios retain their assumptions, and signed exports can be checked without an account.

Does BoardWalk replace Jira or Azure DevOps?

BoardWalk complements delivery trackers. Jira and Azure DevOps manage day-to-day work; BoardWalk connects portfolio decisions, requirements, evidence, approvals and reporting across that work.

How does AI usage work in BoardWalk?

Each organization supplies its own supported provider key. Calls are recorded in a usage ledger and checked against the organization's monthly ceiling before they run. AI can draft a project plan or status update, but the result enters the proposal register and a named person decides whether to accept it.

Is BoardWalk SOC 2 certified?

BoardWalk does not currently hold SOC 2, HITRUST or FedRAMP attestations. The security page separates those independent assurance artifacts from implemented controls and publishes dated evidence for tenant isolation and cross-tenant refusal testing.

Can an AI agent approve or sign anything in BoardWalk?

AI actions create proposals, not approvals. Acceptance and disposition require an authenticated person, and the accepting identity is taken from that signed-in session rather than supplied by the proposal or browser request.

What does BoardWalk not do that Clarity or Planview does?

BoardWalk does not provide resource requisitions, soft or hard booking, skills inventories, resource leveling, timesheets, labor capitalization, critical-path scheduling, percent-complete cost forecasting or departmental chargebacks. Its scenario workspace compares recorded assumptions and constraints; it is not an optimization engine. Enterprise SAML sign-in is implemented and requires identity-provider activation for each deployment.

Can somebody outside the company check a BoardWalk report?

Yes. Deck and trail exports carry an Ed25519-signed receipt covering the counts, acceptances and pinned commit. Anyone can check a receipt at theboardwalk.ai/verify without an account or a call back to the application.

Compare

Compare the portfolio capabilities that shape a decision.

Review eleven portfolio products across health reporting, capacity, financials, benefits, dependencies, evidence and AI. Competitor claims link to the vendor documentation read on 2026-08-14.

Start with project health: some products calculate or predict a status, while BoardWalk keeps the underlying counts and decisions visible. Read the analysis behind that choice.

The capability table Compare specialist depth Check an evidence receipt

Eight capabilities a PMO actually evaluates

Rows are what a portfolio office is buying. Columns are the ten established products in this review, plus BoardWalk. Cells describe the documented operating model so you can match each product to the work your portfolio office performs.

“Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.” means the research pass found the capability described but could not pin a vendor page to it. It is left explicit rather than inferred from another source.

Capability by product. Superscripts link to the vendor documentation each claim was read from on 2026-08-14.
Capability	BoardWalk	Planview Portfolios	Broadcom Clarity	Sciforma	ServiceNow SPM	Jira Align	Asana	monday.com	Smartsheet	Wrike	Celoxis
Project health computationWho decides the color, and can you decompose it afterward?	There is no health score and no RAG state. Counts are printed beside their denominators — 14 of 40 verified — and never averaged.	Manual RAG set by the project manager in status updates, with a fourth gray state meaning not reported.¹	The manager picks three dimension statuses; the overall gauge sums them at 10, 20 or 30 — green under 40, yellow to 89, red at 90.²	Manual RAG on status reports plus an auto-computed Global Score out of 100: weighted Time, Cost and Quality over the sum of the weights.³	Manual, or derived from the latest status report, or predicted per dimension by AI Status Reports behind a Now Assist license.⁴	Manual RAG across five dimensions with a typed reason, and no history retained — a point-in-time view.⁵	A person picks on track, at risk or off track; the AI drafts the prose around the choice.⁶	Status is hand-set. A separate daily AI scan of boards and activity flags risks with a severity beside it.^7,30	A red, yellow or green ball in a symbols column — set by hand, or by an IF formula the customer writes.⁸	A machine-learning risk model sets it; the manual health color was replaced by the prediction.⁹	Computed daily from projected finish and projected cost — and overridable per project by a setting that assumes the project is on time and on budget.¹⁰
Resource capacity and allocationWho is overloaded next month, and did they agree to the work?	A member states capacity as hours with an effective date; load is the sum of allocations a named person accepted, printed as hours beside hours. No requisitions, no skills inventory, no leveling, no utilization heat map.	Time-phased capacity targets at any level of the organization, demand-versus-capacity balancing, skills profiles and timesheets.¹¹	The deepest in this survey: soft and hard booking as separate access rights, a formal requisition workflow, role capacity histograms, skills inventory and native timesheets.^12,13	A request-and-fulfill workflow between manager and resource manager, hard and soft allocation, capacity charts, leveling and three-role timesheet approval.¹⁴	Resource plans with soft and hard allocations and a resource workspace — with limits the vendor's own guide names: no batch approval, and availability consumed before approval.¹⁵	Team-level only, in story points or member-weeks. No named-person allocation and no booking model.¹⁶	Capacity planning allocates people to projects by percent or hours, without assigning them tasks.¹⁷	Workload visualization on the board rather than an availability model.³⁰	Real FTE and hours math — in the separately sold Resource Management product, which the newer Portfolios feature does not support.^18,19	Job roles, daily-capacity work schedules, effort-bearing workload charts, and Bookings: role-level reservations made before tasks exist, at the top tiers.²⁰	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.
Financials: plan, actuals, forecastWhat did we say it would cost, what has it cost, and who says so?	Planned amounts and recorded actuals side by side, each actual carrying the document it was copied from, and the signed subtraction between them. No forecast column, no projected cost, no percent complete anywhere on the page.	Financial planning, forecast and actuals, agile costing, and an explicit capital-versus-operating split with auditable actual costs.^21,22	Cost plans to approved budget plans to benefit plans, net present value, capital and operating cost separation, and chargebacks across departments.^23,24	Portfolio simulation in a sandbox: which projects can launch and when, under cash, cost and effort budget constraints.²⁵	Two funding data models — Investment Funding, or the planning workspace's scenario financials — and a customer picks one, because the two are incompatible.^26,27	Forecasted, estimated and accepted spend against a portfolio funding plan; blended rates or per-person cost centers; capital flags at portfolio and program level.²⁸	No budgeting, cost tracking or return-on-investment tracking at all.²⁹	Money is a number column somebody adds to a board.³⁰	No budget engine in the portfolio feature — sheets the customer builds.¹⁹	A real engine: planned and actual fees and costs computed from rates, effort and approved time logs.³¹	Estimated, actual and projected cost against budget, with rates and per-project overrides — and no capital-versus-operating split, no chargebacks, no time-phased budget plans.³²
Benefits realizationDid the thing we funded produce what we said it would?	A benefit is a claim a named person made, with a target and a basis. Its position is the newest measurement recorded against it, with a source and a date. Nothing is a percentage realized, and nothing is summed across units.	An Outcomes pillar with an outcome lifecycle from launch to sunset; quantified benefit-versus-actual mechanics are not documented publicly.²¹	Time-phased benefit plans carrying planned, actual and variance for each period.³³	A module rather than a field: benefits cataloged, attached to projects, with time-distributed targets and current-versus-target-versus-expected tracking.³⁴	Benefit plans with actuals at breakdown level.³⁵	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Goals give alignment; there is no benefit ledger behind them.²⁹	No benefits register in the documented portfolio feature set.³⁰	No benefits register in the documented portfolio feature set.¹⁹	No benefits register in the documented budget and portfolio feature set.³¹	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.
Cross-initiative dependenciesDid the team on the other end agree to this, or is it a line on a diagram?	A dependency is a contract: requested by one initiative, accepted by a person answering for the other, both signatures stamped by the database from the session. A request nobody has answered is shown, counted, and held outside every dependency figure.	A platform pillar; the AI dependency layer, the Connected Work Graph, was announced in February 2026 and is not evidenced as generally available.³⁷	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	The signature strength of the product: a dependency is a contract between two teams — the requesting team proposes, the responding team accepts or counter-proposes.³⁶	Task dependencies with a thirty-per-task cap and no propagation across projects.²⁹	A portfolio feature exists; its dependency content was not verified against a vendor page in this pass.³⁰	No cross-sheet dependency model in the portfolio feature; the practitioner answer is a cell-link workaround.¹⁹	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Full finish-to-start and its three siblings with lead and lag; an inter-project link needs the predecessor's system identifier typed into an edit form.³⁸
Traceability to code evidenceCan the tool answer “which commit, and did the test run?”	A requirement's citations resolve against one pinned commit; a test result binds the requirement at the rung the evidence supports; a skipped test binds nothing and a failing test still binds, with the failure as its outcome. Exports carry a signed receipt anyone can check without an account.	Hub synchronizes 60-plus tools bi-directionally, including GitHub and GitLab. Sync state, not a binding to a commit.³⁹	The 16.4.2 line ships a server for the Model Context Protocol — driving timesheets from an external assistant.⁴²	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Native two-way synchronization with Jira; the portfolio object is a project, not a requirement bound to evidence.²⁹	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.	Wrike Sync connects development tools including GitLab; the connection carries work items rather than evidence.⁴¹	Jira and Azure DevOps synchronization is a one-way pull, triggered by hand.⁴⁰
AI pricing modelDoes the intelligence stop working when the credits run out?	Each organization supplies its provider key. Calls are ledgered against a monthly ceiling before they run, and AI-generated plans or updates remain proposals until a named person accepts them.	Copilot reached general availability in the November 2024 release with status summarization, risk flagging and metrics questions; its pricing is not published.⁴³	Vaia, user-definable agents, bring-your-own model keys for Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, and a Model Context Protocol server — shipped in the 16.4.x line.⁴²	No native AI in the releases searched before the acquisition; the health score is a formula rather than a model.³	Generally available and license-gated behind Now Assist and the higher SPM tier.^4,44	No native generally available generative AI; the concrete artifact is a read-and-summarize Rovo skill in an early access program.⁴⁵	AI Studio is a credit-metered add-on gated to the higher annual plans.⁴⁶	AI is sold as credits, at roughly a cent each, with minimums by tier.⁴⁷	Smart Assist, AI formulas and AI dashboard generation.⁴⁸	A machine-learning risk model. No agent platform documented.⁹	An assistant called Lex is presented as generally available on the marketing page; no dated release notes were found for it.⁴⁹
Portfolio tier gatingWhat does the portfolio layer cost on top of the seats?	Caps are seats and initiatives, stated before they refuse. The governance layer — the trail, custody, agent sessions, evidence receipts — is not a tier.	An enterprise product; integration to other tools is the separately purchased Hub.³⁹	An enterprise license; what-if portfolio plans with ranked waterlines are core rather than an add-on.⁵⁰	Sold within the Planview line since the February 2025 acquisition, rebranded ProjectAdvantage.⁵²	Portfolio Planning sits in Advanced and Strategic Planning in Prime — two workspaces split by license.²⁷	The Strategy Collection is listed at $77,400 a year for 1 to 50 full users; integrated Jira users are free.⁵³	Portfolio management sits in Advanced and above.²⁹	Portfolio is Enterprise-only, and capped at 200 projects and 20,000 items.³⁰	Portfolio depth is the Control Center add-on, or Enterprise.¹⁹	The real machinery needs Pinnacle or Apex plus the Sync, Analyze and Datahub add-ons.^20,54	Not verified against a vendor page in this pass.

Evidence binding is BoardWalk’s focus. The vendor pages reviewed here document synchronization with development tools; they did not document binding a requirement to both a specific commit and a test execution. Synchronization moves work items, while an evidence binding records what supports a requirement at a particular point in time. The binding ladder is where the difference is spelled out.

Three head-to-heads, at length

These focused comparisons add operating context to the capability matrix.

BoardWalk vs Planview PortfoliosCompare enterprise portfolio depth with evidence-led delivery governance.Read it BoardWalk vs ServiceNow SPMCompare platform-scale planning with traceable evidence and human-approved AI proposals.Read it BoardWalk vs Jira AlignCompare team-level alignment with signed cross-initiative decisions and evidence.Read it

Where specialist platforms go deeper

BoardWalk is built around evidence-led governance. Use these distinctions to identify the capabilities you may still want from a resource, scheduling, financial or assurance system.

Enterprise resource management

BoardWalk records stated capacity and person-accepted allocations in hours. Clarity adds soft and hard booking, requisition workflows, role capacity and skills inventory^12,13; Sciforma adds allocation workflows and leveling¹⁴. PMOs that broker people across a large shared-services pool will find more depth in those specialist resource models.

Recorded scenarios, not automated optimization

BoardWalk lets a named person record a scenario, its project stances, funding references and notes, then compare funding, capacity, benefits and dependencies with each basis and denominator visible. It does not rank alternatives or select a preferred portfolio. Planview publishes optimized scenarios into a plan of record⁵¹; Clarity ranks investments against waterlines⁵⁰; and Sciforma simulates launch dates under budget constraints²⁵.

Time capture and labor accounting

Clarity, Sciforma and Wrike provide time capture, and Wrike’s budget engine computes cost from rates, effort and approved time logs³¹. BoardWalk does not replace a timesheet or labor capitalization system.

Advanced scheduling

BoardWalk presents recorded dates and gate milestones. It does not calculate critical path, auto-schedule downstream work or level resources across a Gantt plan; retain a scheduling tool when those functions are central to delivery planning.

Financial forecasting

BoardWalk shows planned amounts, sourced actuals and the difference between them. It does not extrapolate a landing cost from percent complete. Celoxis includes projected cost and daily status calculations^10,32.

Independent assurance and enterprise identity

BoardWalk does not currently hold SOC 2 Type II, HITRUST or FedRAMP attestations, or a penetration-test summary dated within twelve months. Enterprise SAML sign-in is implemented and becomes available after the deployment and identity provider are configured; SCIM provisioning is not currently included. Review the security posture.

Verifiable operating evidence

BoardWalk exports signed receipts over the counts, acceptances and pinned commit behind a report. A reviewer can check those receipts without an account at the public verifier.

Focused integration surface

BoardWalk accepts structured registers and test results, resolves repository evidence at a pinned commit, and exposes scoped synchronization credentials. Planview Hub documents connections to more than 60 tools³⁹. BoardWalk does not include a comparable catalogue of enterprise resource planning and service management connectors.

Built for evidence-led portfolio governance

BoardWalk fits teams that need to connect portfolio decisions to delivery evidence while keeping accountability with named people.

Connect machine-readable evidence. Resolve requirements against a repository pin, ingest test results and keep the outcome attached to the decision it supports.
Keep specialist resource systems where needed. Requisitions, booking, leveling and skills marketplaces remain the domain of deeper resource-management platforms.
Keep time and scheduling systems alongside it. BoardWalk governs their evidence; it does not replace timesheets, labor capitalization or critical-path scheduling.
Review portfolio facts directly. Counts retain their denominators, scenarios retain their assumptions, and decisions retain the people and evidence behind them.
Plan assurance requirements early. The current security packet provides measured isolation evidence, while independent attestations such as SOC 2 are not currently held.
Use it above delivery trackers. Jira and Azure DevOps manage execution; BoardWalk connects that work to portfolio review, evidence and acceptance.
Use AI for proposals, not anonymous decisions. AI can draft plans and updates; a named person reviews the proposal before it changes the portfolio record.

Questions a buyer asks

Concise answers to the scope, operating model and assurance questions that commonly shape an evaluation.

Does BoardWalk have a RAG status or a project health score?: BoardWalk reports the underlying facts instead of combining them into one health score: verified requirements beside total requirements, signed gates beside total gates, and unresolved findings by class. Teams can review each input without reverse-engineering an average or color.
How is BoardWalk different from Planview or Broadcom Clarity?: Planview and Clarity go deeper in resource booking, requisitions, chargebacks and portfolio optimization. BoardWalk focuses on evidence-led governance: requirements resolve against a pinned commit, test results bind at the level the evidence supports, recorded scenarios retain their assumptions, and signed exports can be checked without an account.
Does BoardWalk replace Jira or Azure DevOps?: BoardWalk complements delivery trackers. Jira and Azure DevOps manage day-to-day work; BoardWalk connects portfolio decisions, requirements, evidence, approvals and reporting across that work.
How does AI usage work in BoardWalk?: Each organization supplies its own supported provider key. Calls are recorded in a usage ledger and checked against the organization's monthly ceiling before they run. AI can draft a project plan or status update, but the result enters the proposal register and a named person decides whether to accept it.
Is BoardWalk SOC 2 certified?: BoardWalk does not currently hold SOC 2, HITRUST or FedRAMP attestations. The security page separates those independent assurance artifacts from implemented controls and publishes dated evidence for tenant isolation and cross-tenant refusal testing.
Can an AI agent approve or sign anything in BoardWalk?: AI actions create proposals, not approvals. Acceptance and disposition require an authenticated person, and the accepting identity is taken from that signed-in session rather than supplied by the proposal or browser request.
What does BoardWalk not do that Clarity or Planview does?: BoardWalk does not provide resource requisitions, soft or hard booking, skills inventories, resource leveling, timesheets, labor capitalization, critical-path scheduling, percent-complete cost forecasting or departmental chargebacks. Its scenario workspace compares recorded assumptions and constraints; it is not an optimization engine. Enterprise SAML sign-in is implemented and requires identity-provider activation for each deployment.
Can somebody outside the company check a BoardWalk report?: Yes. Deck and trail exports carry an Ed25519-signed receipt covering the counts, acceptances and pinned commit. Anyone can check a receipt at theboardwalk.ai/verify without an account or a call back to the application.

Review the evidence directly

Verify an evidence receipt How the binding ladder works Security posture Compare plans

The verifier needs no account and validates the signed receipt without calling the BoardWalk application.

Sources

Every page below was read on 2026-08-14. The kind of source is stated on each line so vendor documentation, marketing material and independent assessments remain distinguishable.

1Planview — Update project status to portfolios (four RAG states, including gray for “not reported”)vendor documentation
2Broadcom Clarity — Project Status Summary report (dimension statuses summed 10/20/30; green under 40, yellow 40–89, red 90 and above)vendor documentation
3Sciforma — Project Health Score (weighted Time, Cost and Quality scores, out of 100)vendor documentation
4ServiceNow — AI Status Reports (RAG predicted per dimension, behind Now Assist)vendor community article
5Atlassian — A Project Manager Guide to Jira Align, Part 3 (five-dimension manual health, no history retained)vendor community article
6Asana — Portfolio progress and reportingvendor documentation
7monday.com — Portfolio management: Risk insightsvendor documentation
8Smartsheet — Available symbols in a symbols columnvendor documentation
9Wrike — AI Project Risk Predictionvendor documentation
10Celoxis — RAG indicators (computed daily; per-project “always assume this project is on time and budget” setting)vendor documentation
11Planview — Capacity Planning capabilityvendor documentation
12Broadcom Clarity — Resource management (16.4.1)vendor documentation
13Broadcom Clarity — Manage requisitionsvendor documentation
14Sciforma — Allocation request workflowvendor documentation
15ServiceNow — Resource assignment and capacity planning guidevendor community article
16Atlassian — Calculate team load widget details, Program Roomvendor documentation
17Asana — Capacity planningvendor documentation
18Smartsheet — Resource Management capacity view (FTE and hours)vendor documentation
19Smartsheet — Portfolios overviewvendor documentation
20Wrike — Bookings (role-level reservations, top tiers)vendor documentation
21Planview — Planview Portfolios data sheet (PDF)vendor documentation
22Planview — CapEx versus OpExvendor documentation
23Broadcom Clarity — Display capital and operating costsvendor documentation
24Broadcom Clarity — Financial management (16.1.3)vendor documentation
25Sciforma — Portfolio simulationvendor documentation
26ServiceNow — Quick start guide for financial planningvendor community article
27ServiceNow — Quick start guide for strategic and portfolio planning (Portfolio Planning in Advanced, Strategic Planning in Prime)vendor community article
28Atlassian — Financials in Jira Alignvendor community article
29Acuity PPM — Asana for portfolio management (independent assessment: no budgeting, cost tracking or ROI)third-party assessment
30monday.com — The portfolio solution (Enterprise; 200 projects, 20,000 items)vendor documentation
31Wrike — Budgeting in Wrike (rates, effort and time logs)vendor documentation
32Celoxis — Budgeting and costingvendor documentation
33Broadcom Clarity — Working with benefit plans (planned, actual and variance per period)vendor documentation
34Sciforma — Attach a benefit to a project and define target valuesvendor documentation
35ServiceNow — Benefits realization management (community thread)vendor community article
36Atlassian — Flow of dependency management in Jira Align (a dependency is a contract between two teams)vendor community article
37Planview — Connected Work Graph, AI dependency intelligence (announced 2026-02-10)vendor newsroom
38Celoxis — Task dependency in another projectvendor documentation
39Planview — Hub (60-plus tools, bi-directional sync)vendor documentation
40Celoxis — Jira and Azure DevOps integration (one-way pull, manually triggered)vendor documentation
41Wrike — Wrike Sync (including GitLab)vendor documentation
42Broadcom Clarity — Using Clarity Vaia (agents, bring-your-own LLM keys, MCP server)vendor documentation
43Planview — Copilot general availability (release of 2024-11-20)vendor newsroom
44ServiceNow — Now Assist for SPM release notes (Yokohama)vendor documentation
45Atlassian — Jira Align Rovo skill, Early Access Programvendor community article
46Asana — AI Studiovendor documentation
47monday.com — AI feature catalog, with credit pricingvendor documentation
48Smartsheet — AI toolsvendor documentation
49Celoxis — AI project management (“Lex”)vendor marketing
50Broadcom Clarity — Explore alternate portfolio plans (waterlines)vendor documentation
51Planview — Investment and Capacity Planning: Rank, Analyze, Shift and Balance viewsvendor documentation
52Planview — acquisition of Sciforma (2025-02-18)vendor newsroom
53Tability — Jira Align pricing (Strategy Collection, 1–50 full users, $77,400 a year)third-party assessment
54Hackceleration — Wrike review (tier and add-on sprawl)third-party assessment
55Broadcom Clarity — Risk score calculation (probability multiplied by impact)vendor documentation
56Sciforma — Risks management (likelihood multiplied by severity)vendor documentation
57Wellingtone — The State of Project Management 2026, press release (72% collate reports for half a day or more each month; 44% dissatisfied with PMO reporting)practitioner research
58Institute of Project Management — RAG status in project managementpractitioner research
59Cultivated Management — Watermelon reportingpractitioner research
60Gartner press release, 2026-07-07 — 60% of organizations will run smaller software engineering teams at scale by 2029, up from 15% in 2026analyst press release
61McKinsey — Rewiring software delivery for the agentic era (the professional's job moves from producing artifacts to supervising the systems that produce them)consultancy research
62BCG Platinion — The Agentic Software Factory, 2026-03-26 (as few as three engineers run delivery; every stage gate has a human accountable for approval)consultancy research
63PwC — AI agent governance for workforce use (verified identity, defined role, task-specific permissions, auditable activity records, clear limits on autonomous action)consultancy research
64Forrester — Agentic software development takes the lead: humans stay accountable, but AI does more of the executionanalyst blog
65METR — randomized trial: experienced developers were 19% slower with AI tools while believing they were 20% fasterprimary study