I run a one-person digital publishing operation: a portfolio of several dozen small, independent websites, each with its own content cadence, maintenance tasks, and SEO work. No team, no account managers, just me and a rotating set of recurring tasks across a lot of unrelated "projects."
For a long time I tried to manage this with whatever project management tool was popular that year, and every single one of them fought me in the same way: they were built for a 10-person team shipping one product, not for one person juggling 70 small, mostly-independent workstreams.
Here's what I eventually learned actually matters when you're evaluating PM software at this kind of scale, which is different from the advice aimed at growing teams.
Per-seat pricing is the wrong lens entirely
Most PM tools price around headcount, which makes sense for a team but is irrelevant when there's one of you. The real cost driver at solo-portfolio scale is how many "projects" or "spaces" you can create before the plan forces you to pay more — because you don't have 1 project, you have dozens. I've been quietly pushed into enterprise tiers by project-count caps more often than by user caps.
Recurring task templates need to survive at volume
A lot of my work is the same task repeated across many sites on a schedule: a quarterly content audit, a monthly backlink check, a weekly indexation review. Tools that handle recurring tasks gracefully for 5 projects often become unusable at 70, because there's no good way to template a task across many projects at once without either a script against an API or hours of manual setup. If a tool doesn't expose task creation through an API, assume you'll eventually write a workaround or abandon it.
Data portability matters more than the feature list
When you're the only person who will ever audit your own task history, lock-in risk is personal: if the export is bad, you lose your own institutional memory, not a team's. I now treat "can I get a clean CSV or API dump of everything, including completed task history" as a harder requirement than any kanban/gantt/calendar view.
Views built for sprints don't match a maintenance cadence
Sprint-based tools assume you're building toward a release. A lot of small-site operation work isn't sprint-shaped — it's maintenance-shaped: recurring, low-urgency, easy to lose track of across many unrelated properties. A flat, filterable task list that can be sliced by site/tag turned out to matter more to me than any sprint board ever has.
What I'd actually tell someone shopping for this
If you're in a similar spot — a solo operator or very small team managing many small, mostly independent projects rather than one big one — don't start from "what do growing startups use." Start from: can I create and update tasks programmatically, does pricing scale with project count instead of just seats, and can I get my data back out cleanly.
Software Rundown's project management comparison is a reasonable starting point if you want a side-by-side on pricing and core features across eight of the mainstream options — useful for narrowing the field before you test the two or three that might actually fit a portfolio-style workflow rather than a single-team one.
None of this is a knock on PM tools generally — they're built for the use case most of their customers have, which is one team shipping one thing. It just means that if your situation looks like mine, the usual "best PM tool" rankings are optimizing for a different problem than the one you actually have.
Top comments (0)