Asta is quicker to build and re-cut a schedule in. Primavera P6 is what major infrastructure contracts name. Most comparisons skip both points because they are written for an American audience where Asta barely registers.
Check the schedule submission clause first. If it names Primavera P6 and requires a native .xer, Asta will not satisfy it no matter how good the schedule is.
Where you have a choice, the split tends to follow the work. Asta Powerproject suits building and fit-out: the bar chart is the working surface, planners build in it faster, and it handles repetitive, location-based sequencing well. P6 suits portfolios of large interlinked projects sharing resources and coding structures, and it is the format the infrastructure supply chain speaks.
Both schedule well. Neither reports.
| Primavera P6 | Asta Powerproject | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Oracle | Elecosoft |
| Tradition | Enterprise portfolio planning | Building construction planning |
| Working surface | Activity tables, with the bar chart as a view | The bar chart itself — direct manipulation |
| Strongest in AU | Infrastructure, resources, government | Building, fit-out, subcontract packages |
| Repetitive / location work | Possible, but not what it is shaped for | A genuine strength — line of balance |
| Portfolio & shared resources | Built for it | Lighter |
| Time to productive | Long. Assumes CPM knowledge up front | Shorter — planners generally build faster in it |
| Contractual acceptance | Frequently named in the contract | Accepted where no tool is specified |
| Exchange | .xer — the supply chain's currency | Own format, with P6 import and export |
Licence costs on both move too often to quote usefully here. Get current pricing, and with P6 confirm whether you are being quoted Professional or the EPPM/cloud product — they are different things.
| Your situation | Pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Contract names P6 or requires a native .xer | P6 | Asta won't satisfy the clause, however good the schedule |
| Building or fit-out, re-sequenced often | Asta | Faster to build and re-cut — and building re-cuts most months |
| Repetitive, location-based work — floors, units, chainage | Asta | Line of balance is what it's shaped for |
| Several projects sharing plant and people | P6 | Portfolio resource levelling is the thing Asta does lightly |
| Subcontractor under a head contractor on P6 | Either | Asta round-trips P6 formats — verify the conversion once, properly |
| Submission requires a DCMA 14-point pass | Either | Build quality decides it — run the 14 checks on what you have |
| The real pain is the monthly report | Neither | Switching schedulers won't fix reporting — add the layer above instead |
Then it is chosen. Check whether it also requires a DCMA 14-point assessment — that changes how the schedule must be built, not just which product opens it. There is a free checker if you want to know where you stand.
Asta. The speed advantage is real and it compounds every time the schedule is re-cut, which in building is most months.
Asta. Location-based planning is what it is shaped for, and forcing that into an activity-table tool is work you do not need to do.
P6. Resource levelling across a portfolio is the thing it does that the alternative does not.
Either, provided you verify what survives the conversion each period. Do that check once, properly, before it matters.
The same gap as every scheduling comparison, and the reason "which scheduler" is a smaller question than it looks.
Both products schedule. Neither claims to be a controls function, and choosing between them does not close this.
It does not replace either one. The schedule stays in whichever tool the contract or your planner requires. Aegis reads what comes out — a P6 .xer, an MS Project XML, Excel or CSV — and produces the layer above: earned value against real cost, float and critical path movement, quantified risk against contingency, a probabilistic forecast, and a written assessment where every rating traces to the number behind it.
Two limits worth stating up front rather than discovering later: nothing is written back to your scheduling tool, and Aegis does not run the DCMA assessment — the free browser tool does that, without uploading your file.
Asta users: export to a P6 or MS Project format for import. Verify the conversion once against your original — the same check you should already be doing before any cross-tool submission.
Different traditions. P6 came from enterprise portfolio planning and is organised around a database; Asta came from building and is organised around the bar chart. In Australia the split tends to follow the sector — infrastructure leans P6, building has a strong Asta presence.
Where the clause requires a CPM schedule in an agreed format, generally yes. Where it names P6 and requires a native .xer, no. Read the clause first.
Asta, by most accounts from planners who have used both — the bar chart is the working surface rather than a view of the data.
It imports and exports P6 formats, which is a practical strength. Expect losses at the edges — calendars, coding, resources, baselines. Verify before relying on a converted schedule.
Both carry cost data; neither is the reporting and forecasting layer. That work usually happens in spreadsheets rebuilt each period.
Aegis reads the export you already produce each period and turns it into earned value, a quantified risk position, a probabilistic forecast and a written assessment.
Start free →