We performed a comparison between Board and Oracle HFM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Performance Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"It is very easy to use. It has got what they call a toolkit, which is a no-code development environment. You can develop a whole solution with it because it is a complete platform. There is a lot of online material that can be used as a reference. You can help yourself while developing a solution. There are some prebuilt applications in the platform environment. You can very easily customize and integrate these applications. It also has flexible scaling of machine resources, which is really great."
"By using Board we can do a lot of free analysis. We can change the layout of a table and even the end-user can change the layout of a table. And in Board 11.2 you can save the layout. That's very useful for the customer, it's a very good function."
"The most valuable features are the reporting and the charts. The reporting functionality is handy for aggregation, when it comes to planning. That ability is fascinating and our users are very happy with it. The charts and the reporting allow our users to see all the data and to see how things are going this year or in the COVID situation. They're seeing everything. Instead of having to check data line by line, they're seeing it in a graph and they're seeing it in charts."
"The most valuable features are around consolidations, eliminations, conversions."
"You can bring in data from any source and from multiple sources, and you can consolidate that data in HFM."
"Financial consolidation and reporting tool with good built-in features such as currency exchange and elimination."
"What could be better is the manual... nowadays, most people use a web client, but on the Board manual website, a lot of the information is only about the Windows client. If they could update that, it would be helpful."
"It can have more functionality for narrative reporting. They should also improve their training courses, which are currently very lightweight. When you get into more complex things, it is quite difficult to figure out what you're supposed to do, and you have to look at a lot of videos before you actually understand, which is a bit frustrating. Their training can be more comprehensive."
"Some of our users are still using an MS Office add-in for Excel for certain calculations, and when they export from Board, some of the values, some of the totals and column names, are not coming through into Excel."
"The complexity is okay. I don't see it as super complex. The solution could have more functionality to make it a little bit more flexible."
"The intercompany reporting function in this tool needs improvement, particularly being able to run reports in batches, rather than one at a time."
"It's a difficult process to try to edit, configure, or change the business rules that exist and work within HFM."
Board is ranked 6th in Business Performance Management with 4 reviews while Oracle HFM is ranked 9th in Business Performance Management with 3 reviews. Board is rated 9.0, while Oracle HFM is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Board writes "Integration with SAP has helped with process optimization, with all data and reports in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle HFM writes "Consolidation tool that allows you to do eliminations and conversions". Board is most compared with Anaplan, Microsoft BI, SAP Analytics Cloud, CCH Tagetik and Tableau, whereas Oracle HFM is most compared with Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud, CCH Tagetik, OneStream XF, Microsoft BI and Longview CPM. See our Board vs. Oracle HFM report.
See our list of best Business Performance Management vendors.
We monitor all Business Performance Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
