Does Moovila integrate with Autotask?

Yes. Moovila integrates with Autotask, syncing projects and tasks between the two so its critical-path engine can plan work that stays connected to your PSA. One thing to check: MSP-grade PSA sync typically sits in Moovila's higher or contact-priced tier, so confirm which plan includes the depth of Autotask sync you actually need before you commit.

What Moovila brings

Credit where it's due — Moovila is the deepest, most mature critical-path engine in the MSP space. Its RPAX risk scoring and automatic schedule recasting are genuinely strong, and it's a serious choice if raw project-scheduling horsepower is your top priority.

What to weigh

• PSA sync depth is tiered — the richer Autotask sync tends to be higher or contact-priced.
• Moovila has no financially-isolated client/partner portal, so sharing plans with customers without exposing internals is limited.
• It's a planning engine you add to your stack, not a unified CRM-plus-delivery platform.

How Current compares

Current also syncs two-way with Autotask, ConnectWise, and Halo PSA and ships its own native critical-path engine, interactive dependency map, and PTO-aware back-scheduling. The difference is scope and isolation: Current unifies CRM, project delivery, and PMI in one platform, includes every feature and integration at one transparent price, and gives partners a portal with database-level financial isolation (RLS plus partner-safe views) — so clients see progress, never your margins.

What to confirm before you buy

• Which plan tier includes the Autotask sync depth you need — this is the single most common surprise, since the MSP-grade sync is typically not on the entry plan.
• Which direction each object flows, and whether the fields you care about are included or just the headline ones.
• What happens to your Autotask data if you stop paying: does the plan stay, or does it live only in Moovila?
• Whether you need a client-facing view at all, because that is the clearest functional gap.

Where the two genuinely differ

This is not a case where one tool is better at everything. Moovila's critical-path engine is the most mature in the MSP space, and if raw scheduling horsepower with autonomous risk scoring is your top priority it is a serious choice. Current's own engine covers the same core ground — all four dependency types with lead and lag in working days, a forward and backward pass that identifies every zero-slack task, cycle prevention before an impossible edge can be drawn, and back-scheduling from a fixed go-live date that flags a deadline requiring a start in the past.

The real divergence is scope. Moovila is a planning engine you add to a stack. Current is one platform holding the CRM, the delivery engine, and the client-facing portal together, so a won deal becomes a project without a handoff, and the client can watch that project without seeing a single financial field.

The portal difference, concretely

Financial isolation in Current is enforced at the database layer, not by hiding fields in the interface. Partner accounts read through partner-safe views that exclude financial columns entirely, with row-level security and restrictive policies behind them. That is what makes it safe to give a client a live link to their own project instead of emailing a sanitized status deck every fortnight.

One honest caveat about Current

Current pushes computed dates to your PSA, not the dependency graph itself. The sequencing model lives in Current, and Autotask receives the resulting start and end dates. If you need Autotask to hold the dependency structure natively, neither tool changes that — Autotask supports finish-to-start relationships only, with no lead or lag offsets.