Celoxis vs. Hugo - Meeting Notes Software

Celoxis is a great option if you are looking for an affordable, easy to use, easy to integrate project manegement solution. It is very powerful for waterfall project management. I evaluated more than 15 platforms and could not find any with a close evaluation in terms of cost-benefit to Celoxis. Of course there are more powerfull tools, for 10 times the price. So far, for project management, there hasn't been a requirement I haven't been able to solve with some work. It really lacks features for Agile methodologies, even if it provides a Kanban view, so far it doesn't provide and additional agile artifacts. If an organization has already reached a very mature project management practice and needs to improve on program and portfolio management, Celoxis won't provide any useful feature. If the organization has the resources (skills and time mostly) to develop some workflows and customization, it might work but with a limit. Hopefully Celoxis addresses these features in the near future.

Incentivized

I think it's important to understand that software recommendations do not come up casually during conversations with your friends so recommending it with no agenda is off the table. However, if someone asks me for tips on note-taking during calls my first priority would be OneNote because it just has more functionality and is usually built-in, meaning you don't have to search for anything online. The second priority would be Hugo though.

• Project planning
• Time log
• Efforts analysis vs plan

Incentivized

• Hugo - Meeting Notes Software removes ambiguity and uncertainty from discussions.
• Participants from both inside and outside the organization can work together on agendas and minutes before and after the meeting.
• The Hugo extension for Google Calendar may be used to arrange and follow up on meetings, both online and offline, as part of your Google calendar.

Incentivized

• Support is at times slow to respond.
• Not new user-friendly.
• Not able to pull in closer or zoom the interface.

Incentivized

• Platform is pretty simple and we use basic; there are probably many features we have not yet realized exist
• I don't think many other firms are using it, so can't use across the profession

Incentivized

I used an evalaution matrix built with input of several stakeholders in the company. In the end the matrix included 100 features (non of them was price related). The matrix was heavily focused on waterfall project management, agile related features were only 5 out of 100 features. Features were labeled as mandatory, required or optional. Products which lacked a mandatory feature (like providing technical support) were disqualified. Then a price vs features evaluation was made and only the products with the best combination were seleced to continue: Celoxis, ITM Platform and Mission Control. A final technical evaluation was made comparing the full evaluation but also the evaluation of only the 40 required features. Overall, Celoxis was the better evaluated (76% vs 65% of the second place), for the 40 required features, Celoxis got 91% against 78% of number 2. In the end we chose Celoxis even when it had higher licensing cost.

Incentivized

The quality of support is better with Hugo. Ease of use is also good with Hugo than when compared to Coda. Hugo met our requirements, so decided to choose it over Coda. It is easier to set up Hugo when compared to Coda and it saves a lot of time.

Incentivized

• Positive in most cases

Incentivized

• Closing acton logs to set clearer paths to business goals
• Serves as good reference tool for important conversations that impact business objectives
• Fosters easy collaboration within the organization

Incentivized