Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

DarwinBox vs PeopleSoft comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

DarwinBox
Ranking in Talent Management
12th
Ranking in Talent Acquisition
10th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Cloud HCM (11th), HR Analytics Software (6th)
PeopleSoft
Ranking in Talent Management
5th
Ranking in Talent Acquisition
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
84
Ranking in other categories
ERP (8th), Activity Based Costing Software (4th), Benefits Administration (3rd), Demand Management (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Talent Management category, the mindshare of DarwinBox is 2.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PeopleSoft is 5.7%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Talent Management
 

Featured Reviews

SHANOOPCHATHOTH PARAMBIL - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhancing attendance and leave management but needs better performance customization
Our primary use case for DarwinBox includes managing attendance, payroll-related tasks, and employee appraisal cycles DarwinBox has provided a significant return on investment for our finance team. Managing payroll and attendance manually would require more team members, so using DarwinBox…
UshaKatyal - PeerSpot reviewer
A mature solution that needs right implementation
I think PeopleSoft HR is pretty good and very mature. The people who built PeopleSoft now work on Workday. Workday has asked me to join them as an employee a few times, but I don't take anyone's employment because Workday isn't very user-friendly. With PeopleSoft, you can do a lot. Oracle now bundles PeopleSoft and calls it Oracle Cloud, but the programs are the same. Recruiters often don't know this and say you're not qualified if you don't have Oracle Cloud experience. However, Oracle has just put PeopleSoft in the cloud and packaged it as Oracle Cloud. Overall, if the solution is implemented correctly, it runs very smoothly. I think people shouldn't customize it. They should use it as is and try to adapt to it. Many people didn't understand PeopleSoft at first. For example, during COVID, some companies hired offshore people who didn't know what they were doing and messed everything up. You need to know the rules and regulations of the country where you're implementing the tool because every country has different rules for HR, benefits, and payroll. Canadian payroll differs from US payroll, but they're on the same platform in the solution. It's a very mature system, but people prefer newer options like Oracle Cloud. I was also involved with SAP S/4HANA. I don't think it's good for the government sector because government workers are a bit lazy about technical things. I understand S/4HANA because I have a technical background. It has a different structure, while PeopleSoft has more of a file and table structure, which is easier. If the tables are set up wrong, things go wrong. But if you know how to set it up correctly, it runs smoothly, and you can adjust it if needed. The problem is that companies are hiring big consulting firms that want money. They hire offshore people who don't know the country's rules and do programming. If you buy a package and still have to do custom programming, why buy the package at all? These days, I'm doing a lot of business process reengineering for people because they don't know how to implement it correctly. If you implement it right, you can reduce manual work. However, it depends on change management and how senior management handles it. It works fine if you implement the tool on-site or hybrid, not cloud and do it correctly. But in a cloud situation, there are problems. Many countries change their payroll and benefits rules often. With the cloud, you can't easily change things. You have to ask the company to make changes, which costs much money. People who don't want an IT department go for the cloud. But I've seen many companies fail with the cloud. The cloud is just everything packaged together. Your data sits in someone else's cloud, and you must accept whatever they do. Payroll is very sensitive. If payroll is wrong, the whole company suffers. I've worked on the financial and school sides, too. I'm comfortable with the tool if it's implemented correctly. But many companies don't implement it right, which is why they might say it is too much. I did a big project for an oil and gas company. I was a program control manager with 51 people under me. We used Oracle, but Oracle isn't as good as PeopleSoft for payroll. If the solution is implemented correctly, it's fine. But you need the right implementer. Big consulting firms often give wrong information and use inexperienced people. For maintenance, PeopleSoft sends updated rules to new tables at year-end. You compile the new tables and start the new year. But you need to know which changes apply to your country. I talk to many senior PeopleSoft people and always get LinkedIn messages about business opportunities. I now help about 50 clients when they have problems, but I'm not traveling. If you know the HR and payroll business well, you can implement anything - PeopleSoft, Oracle, or S/4HANA. I've done all of these. S/4HANA is more complicated and technical. It's similar to an old software called IDMS. You have to be very technical, and if you don't do it right, it won't work. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The leave-related modules are comprehensive, offering built-in functionalities for optional leaves."
"In our company, we use DarwinBox to maintain the data of our employees and for recruitment purposes."
"The most valuable features of the solution are organogram and position-based mapping."
"The solution that we used previously was very complex. As a result, without referring to the manuals and consulting an expert, it was difficult for a newly hired employee to navigate the platform. However, this is not the case with Darwinbox. It has a very intuitive user interface, and anyone can use it and implement it without having to use a guide or a walk through process. It's very simple."
"I often say that PeopleSoft's greatest feature is how customizable it is."
"I would recommend the solution. It's very stable and scalable, which makes it a reliable solution."
"I use the reporting feature occasionally to check for potential improvements in timesheets. We have integrated it with Power BI."
"In general, this solution is user friendly and also performs well. There are two types of forms. One is a standardized form, which you can define things into. The other, you can customize so more repetition can be done in an even manner. That way, it can be designed for what the public or user actually wants. It's not very tough for any person, or layman to understand exactly what the screen requires one to do."
"PeopleSoft is easy to understand, where any end user that is logged in can easily navigate through the menus."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability."
"All the features of the solution are integral to the functionality. Additionally, the navigation customization is beneficial."
"The integration between Human Capital Management (HCM) and PeopleSoft is an important feature."
 

Cons

"Customization in performance management is cumbersome."
"Like most software, it has a base version, the vanilla, out-of-the-box version, and customization is required to match it to the unique processes of each company. The Darwinbox team seems to be having difficulty with the customization process. They have to be a little more mature to customize it as per every company's need."
"The solution's API integration with third-party applications should be improved."
"DarwinBox is not a stable solution...DarwinBox is not a scalable solution."
"Tools and UI could be enhanced."
"The Work Center feature in PeopleSoft is a step in the right direction in consolidating someone's role-based interaction with the system. This enhanced functionality streamlines workflows and improves efficiency."
"The whole systematic flow of any query raised to HR should be improved."
"I would like to see it become available again in Mexico."
"In my opinion, it needs more performance, maybe something technical related, because it's very slow for us and even small activities take a while."
"Often support just asks people to install a lot of upgrades. Sometimes they don't really give you clear details as to why you need to upgrade. They just say, "You need to upgrade this because there's a newer image, etc". They never really give you the reason underlying why you are having errors."
"The learning and development side of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Initial setup can be complex without training or use of consultants."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared with SuccessFactors, there is no major difference in DarwinBox's cost."
"My company makes some yearly payments towards the licensing costs attached to DarwinBox."
"There are no additional costs for licensing."
"I don't know if they are still providing licenses or if they have suspending licenses."
"We are a University and the cost and license are negotiated privately."
"Mostly yearly payments are to be made toward licensing costs. It is not much of an expensive solution."
"One of the cheapest solutions available and also one of the best."
"The product's cost depends on the number of people in your company or the number of paychecks processed. They charge based on these factors, plus a maintenance fee. I'm not sure about current pricing since Oracle took over."
"The licensing cost for PeopleSoft is 3,500 per course and the annual subscription fee is 6,500."
"It's approximately $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 USD per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Talent Management solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
University
9%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about DarwinBox?
The most valuable features of the solution are organogram and position-based mapping.
What needs improvement with DarwinBox?
Customization in performance management is cumbersome. Processes like six-month appraisals lack easy configurations, and any significant customization requires working with vendors.
What is your primary use case for DarwinBox?
Our primary use case for DarwinBox includes managing attendance, payroll-related tasks, and employee appraisal cycles.
What are the differences between Oracle HCM Cloud and PeopleSoft?
Although both are solutions to manage HR, their differences make each one suitable for different companies. Oracle Cloud HCM is a platform for connecting all human resource processes in your organ...
What do you like most about PeopleSoft?
I use the reporting feature occasionally to check for potential improvements in timesheets. We have integrated it with Power BI.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Myntra, GVK BIO, Bisleri, Times Internet, Delhivery, Aarti
BMI Healthcare, Lone Star College System, Jefferson County Public Schools, Griffith University, Los Rios Community College District, Tervita Corporation, INFRA S.A. de C.V., ICF Habitat, Central Washington University, Tech Mahindra Limited, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Stanford Childrens Health
Find out what your peers are saying about DarwinBox vs. PeopleSoft and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.