No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IFS Cloud Platform vs Siebel comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

IFS Cloud Platform
Ranking in Field Service Management
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
CRM (28th), Customer Experience Management (11th), Help Desk Software (16th), ERP (20th), Activity Based Costing Software (10th), Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) (4th), Local Government CRM (13th), IT Asset Management (13th), IT Service Management (ITSM) (15th), License Management (2nd)
Siebel
Ranking in Field Service Management
4th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Order Management Hubs (7th), Product Configuration and Quoting (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Field Service Management category, the mindshare of IFS Cloud Platform is 8.2%, up from 7.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Siebel is 5.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Field Service Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IFS Cloud Platform8.2%
Siebel5.4%
Other86.4%
Field Service Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2268153 - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Operations Engineer
Integrated planning has improved production scheduling and now reduces downtime and costs
The biggest friction point I have run into with IFS Cloud Platform is user adoption, which has been the biggest challenge, as different users in the organization need to get accustomed to the new processes after years of using spreadsheets and legacy systems, requiring training and a mindset shift, along with challenging data migration and process standardization. My advice to someone considering IFS Cloud Platform with a similar workflow is to spend sufficient time understanding and standardizing their business processes before implementing it, as the technology is very powerful, but the real value comes when processes, data, and teams are all aligned. I would rate my overall experience with IFS Cloud Platform as a 9 out of 10.
it_user495873 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Architect at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
I like the assignment management and contact management features. I would like them to extend the possibility for functional segregation.
Extending the possibility for functional segregation would allow us to decentralize certain functions between different areas. In our organization, the administration of users (or executives who access the system) is done by an area. The management of executive skills is performed by another area, according to the current Siebel. These roles should not be independent.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Feature-wise, I like the way it provides inventory details...It is a stable solution."
"I like the connectivity and interfaces. In V10, it's easy to modify the interfaces and layouts, but it's becoming more complicated in the cloud. IFS is excellent at asset maintenance and incident management. They have specialized modules for IFS that cover incident and asset management and everything else connected to finance. The reporting in IFS is also easy to use."
"We could quickly understand what was going on and what the customer wanted to do."
"IFS has been completely rebuilt, modernized, and cloud-based so we don't need bulky software installations."
"The most valuable feature to us was the capability to quickly identify the tickets we have open with people and follow up them."
"The solution overall is very versatile and flexible, especially compared to other products."
"The workflow of the solution is very good."
"The best feature is the maintenance module, which is essentially an industry-specific workflow designed with a manufacturing module as per industry standards. It's very precise and specific without having complex functionalities. It's straightforward. Field Service Management is definitely a wonderful product that IFS has developed because it caters to field services. The energy and utility sectors can answer their business needs using the software."
"With the implementation of the assignment manager, we are now able to automate assignment rules that we previously had in hard, and this feature allows us greater flexibility when incorporating new assignment rules."
"I found that this product had the ability to meet our business needs."
"Being a single source of information, this provides an authoritative source of information."
"It provides end to end customer management, from marketing all the way to support, meaning you also have sales, product management, literature, asset management, opportunity analysis, maintenance SLA compliance, and support, with all the common features present on modern CRMs including phone sync and email merge capabilities."
"As far as CRM's go, it's a very flexible solution, and we're able to customize the business rules with code and to integrate it with middleware applications to manage the rules externally."
"Data migration, data deduplication, and application flexibility with respect to business rules are valuable features."
 

Cons

"IFS uses Crystal Report mostly, which isn't too user-friendly. Developing reports isn't easy and requires a lot of dev time. Since SAP bought it, Crystal Report has become more complicated to use on IFS. You have a dashboard for reporting that is good, but it's incomplete. Most of our clients use Power BI or some additional tooling for BI."
"The initial setup or implementation was a little more complex than I expected."
"I'm a business analyst, so I do a lot of customer-facing work. I take calls from businesses I have to troubleshoot. One thing that bugs me is the error messages you get from IFS. If I get an error message, I have to dig to find the cause because, often, the error message doesn't precisely describe the problem. It'll hint about where the problem lies, but you have to work to find the root cause. It doesn't help in my situation. You expect an error message to point to the field or what is causing the issue."
"We have upgraded to the latest version right now. We have issues with the quality. We tried to enroll in their Evergreen program which was meant to help us adopt any service update or anything that the tool’s providers come up with."
"The user interface can be improved. When you're clicking through the screens, there are some icons or symbols that really need updating and would be more useful and noticeable if they are aesthetically pleasing."
"IFS Applications is not robust enough to handle high-volume transactions, so it's not suitable for larger enterprises."
"There are some stability issues."
"The customer service is not good as expected but we can say its fair."
"Business rules for data duplication can be improved."
"There were issues, mostly due to the lack of capability of the implementation partner who delivered the solution."
"Pricing is very high."
"It is a very expensive product and data steward module is very complex."
"Deployment is still considered cumbersome and the integrations are quite an expense."
"The initial setup was complex. The degree of parameterization required for the initial setup was not made obvious."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is reasonably priced."
"Pricing is an area that could be improved. They could be more competitive."
"There are varying license levels that you can purchase."
"IFS Applications are competitive in terms of pricing compared to other vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, and Epicor. They are generally cheaper, especially for licensing costs."
"We pay for a license to use the solution, which is not very expensive."
"Compared to SAP, the pricing for IFS Applications was very affordable. People using the solution would find that it's worth the money."
"It is better to buy implementation services from IFS than from partners"
"There's an additional yearly cost for support."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Field Service Management solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise10
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with IFS Applications?
There are features that came up during implementation that we are not actually using today, such as field service management (FSM), because we do not have any field technicians visiting customer si...
What is your primary use case for IFS Applications?
My main use case for IFS Cloud Platform is for production planning, where I typically use it for production scheduling and for inventory management. When I open IFS Cloud Platform, the first thing ...
What advice do you have for others considering IFS Applications?
The biggest friction point I have run into with IFS Cloud Platform is user adoption, which has been the biggest challenge, as different users in the organization need to get accustomed to the new p...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

IFS Applications, Assyst, IFS Cloud
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

China Airlines, Electrolux Group, Babcock, Cimcorp, Sky, Multiplex, Veolia. 
Hover Automotive India, Smiles, Bouygues Telecom, Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, Lawn Tennis Association Boosts Tennis, Southwest Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about IFS Cloud Platform vs. Siebel and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.