Business Intelligence Comparison

QlikView
Simplicity: One Tool for all requirement

Business Objects
Different tools for different needs

Explanation
DashBoard Manager+Crystal Reports+OLAP Intelligence = QlikView Creation of cubes,Redesigning of Cubes (OLAP) takes more time to implement.Qlikview hides this layer(Cube Formation)

Dilivery Time:

Implementation Time is less

Implementation time is more TCO is more as Datawarehousing is required

TCO:

TCO is less as it doesn't require DataWarehousing

Technology:

BO puts the processing load on the database server while Associative Database Layer: Data stored in Associative Static Database Queries: Predefined queries diplaying and calculating different values.Where as Qlikview database in memory (RAM) and all run against source database. calculations are performed on the data stored in the Associative aggregations/calculations created dynamically as needed. database which resides in the RAM.

Impact on Source DB:

Records pulled straight across with minimal processing, data stored in a snapshot until refreshed.

Each report contains one or more queries that must be executed against the source BO requires more processing as everytime new query is database every time an instance of a report is executed it puts the load on the database server refreshed, data is stored in each individual report file until refreshed.

Performance - Refreshing the Snapshot:

Data is pulled from the ODBC or OLE/DB connection with minimal processing. The limiting factor is typically the speed at which records can pulled out of the ODBC or OLE/DB connection.

Each report must be refreshed individually one after the other. Calculations are performed at the time the reports are refreshed.

Performance - Analyzing Data:

Data is stored in memory (RAM) and calculated as needed without any disc-reads or network traffic.

Data is static and can not be analyzed interactively. Each report must be rerun against the source database servers to be updated.

Any field in the source data is can be added as a Flexibility - Adding Dimensions and dimension instantly. Likewise new measures can be Measures added on the fly.

New aggregations must be hard coded into reports (an IT task) and reports must be refreshed.

In case user need to view the existing report with an additional dimension it needed to be hardcoded and reports needs to be refreshed(I.T job) where as Qlikview allows the user to add new dimension just by adding new field into the report

Offline Analysis

QlikView applications compress data to less than 8% 3% of original source data size. QlikView apps can be analyzed disconnected from the network and many apps are small enough to be sent via email.

Qlikview reports are available offline and user can interact with Reports are generally availible offline but are them as if he is online.In BO reports are available offline but user static and do not allow interactive analysis. can't interact with the reports and do the queries.

Administration & Report Creation

QlikView is easy to administer and reports could be generated with few hours of training.

Administration & Reports Generaton in Crystal Reports (BO) requires specialised programming skill set(.NET,OLAP,Java)

Ease for End-User

End User(Power User) can create his own charts and reports with ease.

Not easy for End Users to design their own charts and reports.

Learning Curve

QlikView Most QlikView users have less than four hours of training.

Target Users

QlikView is a true BI Tool for the Masses.

Installation

A solution based on QlikView is installed in less than a week in most cases..

Customization Customization is done in minutes or hours, and in most cases by the end user.

Application Development

New applications can easily be developed as the needs evolve. A couple of weeks is normally enough, even for complex applications, such as Balanced Scorecard.

OLAP Technology OLAP technology requires several days and even weeks of training.

OLAP ends up in the hands of specialists.

A solution based on Data Warehouse and OLAP technology is rarely installed in less than three months. In many cases its up to a year.

Customization takes several days, often even weeks, and has to be done by a specialist.

Development of new applications is expensive and time-consuming, since OLAP technology limits its users to a small number of measures and dimensions.

Financial results have nothing to do with the performance of a product, but everything to do with management and its execution. Given the current economy, Business Objects has cut more overhead (which Wall Street loves), executed several deals with partners that will package BO as part of a total CRM solution (Perrigrene just this week), and has always been the leader in Europe. They have also been doing some sort of press release almost weekly since September of this year, which were taken very positively for whatever reasons, and has driven their stock price up about 35% over this time period - again, which contributes to market cap. If you do a quick check, they also have a much larger profit margin than does Cognos, which gives them more room to "play" with pricing - which is great until customers catch on!!! But if you dig a little deeper, if BO is really better, financially speaking, than Cognos, why is it that BO at a market cap of $2.1B has only $221M in cash on hand when Cognos, only at $1.69B, has 258M cash on hand. I'm no financial analyst, but using the little accounting skills that I've obtained along the way say that Cognos is managed better than BO - working with only half the profit margin of BO, yet holding on to more money. Hmmmmm??? Wow, your statements really have me diving into the numbers. BO sales are $405M for the year, Cognos at $493M for the year. I'm using public 10Q statements as reported to the SEC by both companies which can be found either on their respective websites, or on Edgar's, or on any financial website out there. How did you come up with your numbers to support your statments? It would be interesting to know!!! Now to the product....Cognos is very much integrated just as BO is. Yes, there are several products, but each for a specific task. Just as with Microsoft, you could use Word to create a bunch of slides for a presentation, but PowerPoint would be the recommended tool. So is the case with Cognos. Reporting - Impromptu or IWR, depending on user needs, PowerPlay for OLAP, and so forth. Most everyone that I've worked with in the past in the analytics world has a plethora of needs. The one tool fits all might satisfy 80% of the folks, but that last 20% are typically the power users with very unique and distinguished needs. Here is where Cognos wins the majority of its business. BO approaches the 80% that one-size-fits-all works. The idea here was to assist those in making a decision. And it's totally fine to have a biased opinion one way or the other, but I don't think it is fair to make assumptions or take uninformed "cheap shots" on either tool. By placing only the facts on the table will assist us all in making not only a decision, but making a decision that will benefit our respective user base(s). My experience runs deep using both toolsets (as well as Brio). At the end of the day, it all comes down to who needs what, and what's the best way to get there. If I'm in front of a very general user base that only needs reports with minimal OLAP functionality (the 80% mentioned above), yes BO works. But if I'm in front of serious power users (the final 20%)that need real slice and dice, OLAP capability, then Cognos is the tool. Take a look at an anyalyst's job. (S)He starts out with a cube (or OLAP

report), sees a high-level problem and digs in (drill thru or drill down) to detail. In BO, you have to start with the details and work your way up to find a problem, then back thru to detail to find the anomolies. I can only speak for myself, but doing twice the work is something I'd much rather avoid - and the 20%-user base understands this. That's where the true difference lies between these products. They both will get the job done, but take very much different paths to get there. Hope this clears the air......