Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud Reviews

Planning and consolidation purposes are the main use cases for it. The main use is data forms to input data in the cube. We create an application from zero, define the dimensions, filters, security, data forms, security data form, and calculation script to associate with each data form. The integration with another interface using batch script and custom tables is also important.

For Planning and Budgeting, we use only data forms. While it is not reporting, we use data forms for reporting and data input.

The best feature of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is the possibility to use data forms to input data and allow users to have a template with the data form. For users, it is not necessary to go with a free form to take data or input data.

My automotive customer transitioned from Essbase on-premise to Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud specifically for the data forms functionality. This is the main feature that Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud offers compared to the Essbase on-premise solution.

Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud offers the possibility to use data forms for viewing and inputting data. This is the easiest way to perform these actions without using free forms.

Cloud services are what I would like to see improved, specifically Planning Cloud and Essbase on Cloud.

The challenges I faced relate to the database definition, because it is necessary to define a database with the creation of application. I encountered some troubles defining this database and associating it with the new application. There were no other difficulties.

We open tickets on Oracle support for bugs and questions that we cannot resolve. We scheduled calls with Oracle to solve these questions. The support experience has been excellent.

The support deserves a rating of 8 or 9. I appreciate the way Oracle supports the customers.

Positive

In Essbase, it is very important to set the correct typology of the members in dimensions and consider whether the dimension is sparse or dense.

My automotive customer transitioned from Essbase on-premise to Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud specifically for the data forms functionality. This is the main feature that Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud offers compared to the Essbase on-premise solution.

In my experience, I use Essbase and OneStream, as well as Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for another automotive customer. I use scenario only as a member of the dimension. I have never used Oracle's predictive planning tools.

The solution is moderately difficult to use, rating approximately 5 or 6 out of 10. I want to improve cloud services of Oracle, but in the current Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud on-premise, there are no features that I want to improve.

My overall rating for Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is 8 out of 10.

Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud streamlines the planning and budgeting forecasting of business functions.

In six months, our planning and bursting can go live for financials.

The solution is part of the decision-making process, and when we are in good shape with real-time scenarios consolidated at group level, the decision-making is faster, providing clearer decisions with more robust data in these uncertain times.

The most helpful and useful features that Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud provides are real-time reports, narrative reports, and real-time bursting forecasting for business functions.

The solution automates the planning processes and does it in real-time.

The business rules behind the forms need improvement, and the total processing time should be enhanced with the help of proper commands, specifically regarding the execution time of existing rules.

I have been working with Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for five years in a support project.

Integration is available with the solution through data pipeline, though there are some challenges in the integration part, requiring proper mapping and the creation of data load rules.

The system takes more time currently since we may not have professionals available to handle the issues, making it more time-consuming.

Deployment becomes straightforward when we finalize the level of balanced data in the source planning balance cubes, and with proper integration and mappings in place, we definitely get a good planning and bursting model for the whole group.

The customer service is good, but it takes some time to respond, and I rate it 10 out of 10.

Positive

I explored Anaplan but did not get any opportunity there. Oracle is the biggest firm, so other reporting tools might come into Oracle's domain.

Integrating narrative reporting helps the whole organization, allowing each person in the department to understand the flow.

I was fortunate to get initiated in Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud first, as that was the first project where I was placed during campus placement from college.

It is the best solution currently in the market, though it is mostly designed for bigger organizations.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud a 10.

I am not currently using the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud with any of my clients recently. There are no specific use cases that I have for this product.

Some of the best features with the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud perform better than OneStream.

The flexible modeling capabilities of the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud have helped with optimizing resource allocation.

The built-in collaboration tools with the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud have aided communication among me and my clients as well as the clients and stakeholders.

The advanced analytics within the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud helps with the performance insights on some of these clients.

The Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud can be improved in various ways.

I would rate the Oracle support at 5 out of 10 compared to OneStream at 10.

Positive

My company is partners with both Oracle and OneStream.

The pricing for the Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud fits on the higher end if 10 is the most expensive and one is the least expensive.

The Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is very good. The overall rating for this solution is 5 out of 10.

As an end user, it took just a few minutes to get started, though the definition of implementation can vary depending on whether you're running the cloud or just installing the application.

It's a web-based database, which made it quite easy to use.

We primarily used the interface for our operations.

Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud helped save significant time in creating reports for stakeholders and shareholders.

The solution provided reliable data for our organization.

It's a really good tool for integration and creating consolidated reports.

The solution is more user-friendly and has improved design features.

The flexibility was good, and it performed better compared to HFM.

It's pretty advanced for communication and accurate budget planning.

The solution includes AI features.

The interface presents some challenges, particularly in connecting to other systems.

The product itself was somewhat expensive.

There were significant issues that led to discontinuing use of the product.

We used Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for one and a half years.

The installation process took approximately one hour.

With the proper knowledge, installation can be completed independently.

Implementation was completed with our internal IT team.

I would rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud a seven out of ten.

I talk to data center managers about their requirements and what they need, and I position the right product for them. I do not currently use any Oracle products in an infrastructure that I'm managing.

As I do not actively use the product in my infrastructure, I have not observed any specific improvements within an organization I manage.

Oracle has tools such as supply chain management, human resource management, database tools, performance tools, and financial tools. They also provide tools certified to work on-site, in the cloud, or in a hybrid scenario, and this flexibility is valuable for various business sizes. 

Additionally, Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud offers predictive capabilities that help plan and organize for future resources with Exadata infrastructure and OCI Cloud.

OCI can predict changes in your infrastructure in advance so that customers aren't caught off guard. It would be nice if OCI could predict these changes and notify Administrators without the Administrators asking OCI to do it. It would be nice if this function was automated. Right now, OCI can predict what changes should be made. But, at the Administrator's prompting.

I was a presales engineer at Oracle and thus interacted with the products in a sales capacity.

There were no explicit comments about the stability of the solution; however, the Oracle infrastructure appears to offer reliable performance.

Oracle infrastructure is highlighted for its high performance, enhanced security, and scalability. It automatically provisions and deprovisions resources based on necessity, minimizing costs effectively.

Oracle's support team is highly committed, making customer experiences pleasant regardless of the support level. They bypass basic troubleshooting steps and go directly to solving complex problems, respecting the urgency of customer needs.

I have worked with various organizations that use AWS and Azure in combination with OCI to improve backend performance.

OCI setup is intuitive, thus allowing management teams to reduce manpower due to the automation and ease of using OCI.

The meticulous design by experts from Azure, AWS, and Google transformed OCI into a leading hyperscaler solution.

Oracle provides a single unified price worldwide, ensuring consistency regardless of location. The infrastructure is designed to be cost-effective, with more features and easier management.

AWS, Google, and Azure were evaluated, with OCI outperforming AWS configurations in certain hybrid scenarios.

I would recommend the solution to everyone, including small mom-and-pop businesses, as it is affordably priced without sacrificing enterprise-level features.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Positive

It is used for planning, budgeting, P&L generation, income statements, cash flow, sales reports, etc. This product has scenarios and versions to keep the data. Based on scenarios like actual or customer projects, you can tie into them and perform financial analytics. You can use actual data for your financial reports like P&L, budgeting, income, cash flow reports, and balance sheet generation. 

With past and present data, you can make predictions for future business. Users can store data in scenarios based on whether they are doing budgeting or forecasting. You can navigate the data in those scenarios. When you do budgeting for, for example, 2025 or 2026, and when 2026 comes, you can check the versions to see how close you were to your predictions.

The best thing about the tool is the budgeting scenarios and versions. It helps us migrate data, visualize data, and do variant reporting. There are approval processes that allow users to submit data, whether for budgeting or forecasting. When they submit, it goes up in the hierarchy for approval. 

If the data looks good to the manager, they can approve it. This is a very unique feature that we get. The approval process is a back-and-forth process; it doesn't get finalized in one go. 

Another feature is the business rules, where we can give users the flexibility to run calculations on demand. We can set runtime prompts for them, so they can run the calculation for whichever year or factors they want. They just need to know the value they want. Everything else can be set up by the admins. These are the flexibilities that we can give the user.

There are some issues with block creation in the memory. Sometimes, when we run a calculation and a new intersection is hit during the calculation, the memory block doesn't get created, which doesn't give the correct result. 

Again, we have to do some back-and-forth. We have to use some more functions or alternative functions to enable block creation. 

But there are not many issues. It's a good tool. These kinds of shortcomings will always be there in every tool.

I have experience with this product. I have also used other Oracle products. 

There are around 200+ end users using this solution. 

It is expensive because it depends on the volume of data you're using, the number of users you have, and the licensing partnership you have with Oracle.

If someone wants to use it for the first time, they need to know the basics of Essbase. Planning has a UI that interacts with Essbase in the backend. The UI is easy; there are videos available over the internet that will help anyone learn Planning easily, but the main concept lies in the Essbase part. 

As a developer, knowing Essbase is important. Understanding the business processes, how the company works, is important. This will help the user set up or help the customer with their solution easily.

I would definitely recommend using this tool. Any big-sized company whose finance department requires an analytical engine like this. It gives you an end-to-end solution from integrating data from the source system to reporting. So it's a highly recommended tool.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I have implemented in many industries, including manufacturing, banks, construction, and health businesses. It's an amazing software. We are in a new area where CCH and OneStream are offering different technologies, but it used to be only Oracle before.

Every time you have software consolidating, it helps avoid mistakes from humans. You can control if people can or can't change a number if you want. 

By consolidating data efficiently, you can report your numbers for stakeholders quickly, enabling faster decisions. In the planning scenario, new features like predictive planning offer customization and allow you to use your data to train AI and show good reports.

I like the way Oracle offers a methodology to build applications differently. You can integrate them to show integrated data without using the same architecture. This offers benefits like improved performance and flexibility for planning processes that are not strongly connected to consolidation. 

The customization level is excellent. OneStream offers similar capabilities, but CCH is more difficult to customize. Oracle has matured very well compared to competitors and offers efficient consolidation and planning solutions.

Oracle initially forced HFM users to migrate to FCCS, which was difficult because moving applications wasn't easy. Many clients chose OneStream due to this ease of transition. FCCS should have been more open to customizations initially. Oracle has made improvements, but FCCS should be continually enhanced to match their planning applications.

Between the on-premises and the cloud version, I have used it for around seven to eight years.

Oracle is stable as long as you know what you are doing. Poor setup by someone who doesn't know database properties can lead to subpar performance, however, that is not Oracle's fault.

The scalability of Oracle is impressive and competes well with OneStream. I am not yet sure about CCH, but Oracle is very scalable.

I rate their customer service as eight. Sometimes, the initial experience isn't great, but they ultimately provide good advice and solutions.

Positive

I have experience with Oracle. HFM users moved to OneStream due to similarities in language and ease of moving applications. FCCS required different scripting language transformations.

Oracle's initial setup is user-friendly especially if you have no pre-existing system or process. It allows easy model enablement like financial, workforce, project, and capital, making it an ideal choice.

Normally, the implementation team consists of consultants with specialists in consolidation and planning. FP&A is involved in providing guidelines, along with project managers and success managers from the consulting firm, totalling easily more than ten people.

The software accelerates processes and improves accuracy by organizing data for better reporting. It also offers features like predictive planning.

The cloud version reduces infrastructure costs since no servers or related staff are needed. However, it might feel expensive to small or mid-sized companies due to licensing requirements. Oracle prices are reasonable considering the services provided.

I have experience with Oracle, OneStream, and exploring CCH. Initially, many clients chose OneStream because of similarities with HFM and easier language transitions.

Easily adapted models are beneficial, particularly if workforce resources are widespread. For OneStream, extensive customization can sometimes lead to performance issues if not implemented properly. Oracle’s model flexibility is a major advantage.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I have implemented Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud in many industries, such as manufacturing, banks, construction, and health business. It's an amazing software. In the past, Oracle was the main solution, however, now, OneStream and CCH are offering different technologies.

When you have software like Oracle consolidating, it's not just about speeding up the process but also avoiding mistakes from manual tasks. You can control data access and changes, thereby reporting numbers to stakeholders more efficiently for decision-making. Predictive planning, though not yet implemented by me, seems ready for AI integration, allowing training with your data for better future predictions.

I value Oracle's flexibility and customization levels. It's beneficial to have the ability to integrate applications and keep them separate for performance reasons. Oracle offers a methodology that differs from other competitors, like OneStream and CCH. With solutions like HFM or FCCS, you can easily consolidate subsidiaries, translations, eliminations, and consider ownership, enhancing the software's usefulness.

Oracle made a mistake by forcing HFM users to transition to FCCS before the solution was mature enough. It caused many clients to opt for OneStream due to its similarity with HFM. FCCS initially lacked customization options, which deterred clients. Oracle is improving FCCS, but further enhancements are necessary to match its planning applications.

Between the on-premises and cloud version, I have been using it for around seven to eight years.

Oracle is stable, but knowledge of database properties is crucial to avoid poor application setup. If issues arise, it's not Oracle's fault; it's due to incorrect setup.

Oracle's scalability is impressive, considered among the top competitors. Compared to OneStream, it's trusted for its scalability.

I would rate Oracle customer service as eight out of ten. Occasionally, you encounter inexperienced representatives, but they ultimately provide good advice.

Positive

Oracle is highly recommended for initial setup, especially if you lack an existing system, due to its comprehensive modeling and pre-configured scripts. It's ready to accelerate every project.

Deployment typically involves more than ten people, including consultants, specialists in consolidation and planning, the FP&A team, project managers, and potentially a success factory from the consulting firm.

Having a software solution helps avoid human errors in financial processes, speeds up stakeholder reporting, and enhances decision-making. Predictive planning offers potential benefits through AI integration, although this is not yet fully realized.

While cloud pricing may initially appear more expensive due to the absence of infrastructure expenses, it is fair. There's no need for physical servers or infrastructure management. 

The licensing is reasonably structured, although there's a minimum license requirement, which might be costly for small and medium-sized companies.

The main competitor mentioned is OneStream, which offers a centralized app but lacks performance with complex developments. CCH was also mentioned as an option.

The trade-off between centralized apps like OneStream and the customizable flexibility of Oracle is important. Oracle should be the choice if ease of maintenance and widespread knowledgeability are priorities.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

As a company grows and expands into multiple regions with different currencies, the level of complexity increases. At that point, Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud becomes a better solution. Based on a company's revenue and size, there is a threshold where they need to transition to a better tool to handle the increased complexity.

The tool improves the organizational budgeting process in several ways. One significant aspect is the extensionable functionality it offers. To illustrate, consider a scenario where a company has factories in Mexico producing Volkswagen and Kentucky producing Ford. 

When employees in Mexico input their budget and forecasts, they only see the relevant products and processes applicable to their location. Similarly, employees in Kentucky have access to data pertinent to their operations. This functionality streamlines the user interface experience by dynamically filtering information based on relevance. It eliminates the need for users to sift through irrelevant options, akin to the inconvenience of scrolling through a lengthy dropdown menu to select a state when a simple text entry could suffice. Having that capability essentially means that the system recognizes your location, like being in New York, and automatically presents relevant information.

I think it's pretty powerful for where they are right now. It fits the bill for people seeking a solution for planning and budgeting. And it probably fits the bill better than most products out there. One of the nice things about it is its power and versatility. Anything you can do in a spreadsheet, you can do in this product. It has all the power of a spreadsheet and fixes issues like security, data integrity, and the standard errors in spreadsheets. So, taking away the drawbacks of Excel and replacing them with good features is a fantastic capability they have. Most people who get these products previously created all their budgets and forecasts in Excel. The fact that it's the next step in evolution speaks volumes about their development.

The tool incorporates AI functions encompassing budgeting, forecasting, and transactions at the macro and micro levels. On the other hand, OneStream seems more focused on reporting, planning, and budgeting functionalities. Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud's approach seems more holistic, leveraging its ERP products, while OneStream focuses more on specific functionalities relevant to its product offerings.

The tool's interface is outdated. However, OneStream is easier to navigate. 

The tool's customer service is fairly good. Outsourcing to India has taken some time to get up to speed, but they are now well-trained. Additionally, they have domestic senior resources, allowing for quick escalation of complex issues.

However, they can also concentrate on enhancing the process. This means that even though you may start with basic support, you can be escalated to higher levels with better solutions or more quickly, which I believe they have accomplished.

Positive

Every company is unique, with different growth strategies and trajectories. Some companies focus on acquisitions to grow rapidly, while others prefer organic growth, expanding into new markets gradually. It depends on the company's specific growth goals and how they plan to achieve them. For example, a company aiming to grow from $100 million to $1 billion in revenue in two years will require different strategies than one aiming to increase from $100 million to $200 million in the next year.

I rate the product a nine out of ten.