We performed a comparison between IBM Planning Analytics and KiSSFLOW 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's a very stable, robust product."
"The flexibility of IBM Planning Analytics is a great feature of this solution. The design flexibility with data rules and defining calculations The ability to combine online and offline calculations are a benefit. Additionally, the forecasting features and predictive analytics is very good."
"The most valuable feature is that it is able to slice and dice the data."
"The tool is flexible."
"The product's stability is good."
"All the different platforms are well integrated."
"Navigating through the data to make analysis is really quick."
"Planning Analytics' best features include automatic updates and slicing."
"The user interface is very, very good."
"The most valuable feature is APIs. Its integrations are very flexible, allowing developers to connect multiple applications like DocuSign, Salesforce, OpenText, and SEB."
"I work in HR and am fond of automation. I like the tool's email automation and integration with Outlook."
"I like the forms which help us to get information."
"The best thing about Kissflow is its user-friendliness."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"Kissflow has reduced the bottleneck around getting approval for certain items in the company."
"Kissflow is intuitive and easy to use, and I haven't faced any errors using the solution so far."
"It is a bit expensive, but it does the job."
"The dashboard is very poor and needs a lot of improvement."
"The tool's transport layer could be improved when promoting development between environments."
"The local authentication part is difficult to manage in the product, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Planning Analytics could be improved by adding automation features."
"Extracting data is a little slow."
"The tool should include features for prediction. It can also improve the scalability."
"It's highly competitive right now, and all the vendors are in a race to put out new versions with additional features. IBM comes out with new versions too often, and it has an impact on quality."
"KiSSFLOW needs to improve its integration."
"They should increase their marketplace with existing tools so that connections are directly through connectors instead of API integrations."
"There is room for improvement in terms of stability."
"The UI, though is pretty friendly and easy to use, can be improved in some aspects."
"There is a lag in the delay between API calls."
"When there are multiple steps or if there's a disconnect when creating the ticket, it could be a problem for the user."
"Sometimes some notifications don't appear on the mobile app."
"Some of the tool's fields only accept certain types of text. The input fields are inflexible."
IBM Planning Analytics is ranked 6th in Business Performance Management with 21 reviews while KiSSFLOW is ranked 5th in Business Performance Management with 12 reviews. IBM Planning Analytics is rated 8.6, while KiSSFLOW is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Planning Analytics writes "Can easily create dashboards and helps businesses improve forecasting accuracy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of KiSSFLOW writes "The tool is intuitive to use and, through automation, has been a real time-saver". IBM Planning Analytics is most compared with SAP Analytics Cloud, Microsoft Power BI, Anaplan, Jedox and IBM Cognos, whereas KiSSFLOW is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Camunda, ServiceNow, Nintex Process Platform and OutSystems. See our IBM Planning Analytics vs. KiSSFLOW 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.
