We performed a comparison between IBM Planning Analytics 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."The product's stability is good."
"IBM Planning Analytics is easy to use and deploy. It is quick to develop. The calculation machine is also very fast."
"Planning Analytics' best features include automatic updates and slicing."
"The most valuable feature is that it is able to slice and dice the data."
"The ease of use is valuable. The fact that it's plugged into Excel spreadsheets is also valuable. It provides additional functionality where you can slice and dice the information in a way that you can't do with spreadsheets"
"The tool is flexible."
"It's a very stable, robust product."
"Navigating through the data to make analysis is really quick."
"The most valuable features are around consolidations, eliminations, conversions."
"Financial consolidation and reporting tool with good built-in features such as currency exchange and elimination."
"The tool is stable."
"It is a very user-friendly software."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"You can bring in data from any source and from multiple sources, and you can consolidate that data in HFM."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility and ease of configuration in terms of testing and formula creation."
"The tool should include features for prediction. It can also improve the scalability."
"It is a bit expensive, but it does the job."
"It would have been better if the solution was not just a tool kit."
"It's wonky, and not super user-friendly with Excel."
"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."
"The tool's transport layer could be improved when promoting development between environments."
"The dashboard is very poor and needs a lot of improvement."
"Integration is an area where it lacks and can be improved."
"It's a difficult process to try to edit, configure, or change the business rules that exist and work within HFM."
"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."
"If there could be data integration between HFM and the accounting software that would be ideal."
"The intercompany reporting function in this tool needs improvement, particularly being able to run reports in batches, rather than one at a time."
"The solution has integration challenges. We need a simple tool that is fool-proof for the data that is submitted not only for consolidation purposes but also for performance management and reporting purposes."
"In terms of improvement, one challenge with Oracle HFM is the need for technical knowledge in writing SQL syntax for custom extensions."
IBM Planning Analytics is ranked 6th in Business Performance Management with 21 reviews while Oracle HFM is ranked 7th in Business Performance Management with 14 reviews. IBM Planning Analytics is rated 8.6, while Oracle HFM is rated 8.0. 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 Oracle HFM writes "Offers flexibility and ease of configuration". IBM Planning Analytics is most compared with SAP Analytics Cloud, Microsoft Power BI, Anaplan and Jedox, whereas Oracle HFM is most compared with Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud, Oracle Hyperion, OneStream XF, CCH Tagetik and Workiva Wdesk. See our IBM Planning Analytics 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.
