Compare Qlikview with BO is like to compare Orange with Banana, they both are fruits but they are different, in shape, health properties and so on.
It´s very important to define what your users need in terms of data Analisys. Depending on your answers, the choice could be Qlikview or BO.
You choose Qlikview if you want:
- Rapid Time to Value.
- No need to pre build a Datawarehouse. If you don´t have one, you will not need it.
- Querys with subsecond responses, achieved with In-Memory Data.
- Enable users to explore data from less detail (more agregated data) to transaction level (detailed data).
- High interactive Dashboards.
- One Single Product for ETL, Development and End User Analysis.
- Empower Users with the hability to create their own analysis with their own data.
You choose BO if:
- You want to expend lot of time and money building a datawarehouse and that is not a problem in your project. Connecting BO directly to your production database could seriouly impact performance.
- Also you have a dedicated DBA to manage the datawarehouse.
- Your users need to create static Reports, not dynamic Analysis.
- If you already a SAP customer, maybe they gave you the software for free. But you still need to pay a lot of consulting.
I sugest you to:
- Show BO and Qlikview to your users and let then choose.
- Make a proof of concept with your company Data with both products.
Karthik N S wrote:Hi I have started using QV recently. I see that QV does not ad-hoc reporting capability. I feel that as major difference between BO and QV.
Correct me If I am wrong
I suppose that depends on what you mean by ad-hoc reporting. QlikView loads all of the data into memory according to a script. Generally speaking, your users then interact with the data in the ways you have set up. You can set up very dynamic charts if desired.
What QlikView doesn't let your users do is actually CHANGE what data is loaded into memory. They can't go and run SQL against the live databases (well, not usually). They're always interacting with a copy of the data. The load script can use SQL against the live databases, but this is under developer control, not user control. On the other hand, if you want your users to be able to view any field from the database, feel free to load every single field in. I don't do that personally - I want to exercise more control over what my users see and what they don't see, plus our real databases are fairly generic and cryptic and not really understandable by users.
I don't believe our own users do this, but the users CAN create completely new charts on the fly, and can share these with other users. The difficulty is that except for the simplest possible charts, this is probably beyond most users. Well, it's not REALLY that hard. It's like getting good at Excel, and not really much more complicated than that, and in some ways simpler. But our users don't bother. They just come to the systems department when they want a new field on a chart, for instance. Our turnaround time for simple changes is very fast, so it isn't much of an issue. I can see how if we were a lot slower at getting them their data, they might want to learn how to create their own charts.
(Edit: Found out today that at least one user is using at least one user-defined chart, because I accidentally broke it when I removed a bunch of "unused" fields from the in-memory data model. Oops!)
Thanks for your elaborate explanation.
I am preparing presentation on advantages of QV over BO, the points mentioned in this blog are useful and leverage it to the maximum possible extent in presentation that I am preparing.
I request you share some more thoughts if you have any that you believe helpful for me
Karthik N S
In bullet points, and I may repeat things already mentioned above..
SAP Business Objects XI:
- Has proven itself capable of handling hundreds or even thousands of users at once
- Allows users to generate their own "reports" or "analytics" (e.g. OLAP views) without IT / analyst assistance
- Has very strong metadata management capabilities
- Provides an array of different tools that can be used in different ways to achieve different goals or meet requirements from different user types, from speedy simple analysis (Polestar) to complex dimensional analysis (Voyager) to dashboards to reporting.
- Tends to provide poor performance, particularly in Dashboarding (Xcelsius) and Voyager (OLAP), and particularly when users are working remotely over a smaller pipe (e.g. home DSL or cellular modem)
- Has poor support
- Requires a data warehouse and a full-scale, long-term project
- Has no pack-and-go solutions and very partial Smartphone support (only for WEBI, the reporting tool)
- Uses a web browser as its only client application
- Has proven itself in the small/medium market, but does not have nearly as many large-company implementations as BO
- Requires IT/Analyst support to create new means of displaying data
- Lacks strong metadata management (but this is supposedly being fixed in QV10, release this September)
- Provides a single tool for all users, meaning less training and implementation time and a more intuitive interface, but can't adapt to specific user needs
- Tends to provide excellent performance both over LAN and remotely (even over smaller pipes)
- Has strong community support, and generally has strong vendor support
- Does not require a data warehouse, time to go-live tends to be much shorter than BO (QV claims 1/4 of the time)
- Has a pack-and-go solution for offline work, and supports Smartphones, iPhones, and iPads.
- Has both a web-only (AJAX) and Client application, the latter tending to provide significantly better performance.
Full disclosure: I've been working with QV/QVS (No publisher) since 2003, and with BO XI for about a year. I think Polestar, and to a lesser extent Xcelsius, are good tools, WEBI is nothing to write home about, and Voyager is downright awful to the point where most potential users refuse to use it even after extended training.
I would also appreciate a copy of your comparison when you finish it.
BO doesn't require a DWH. You can report on any relational database. With Crystal Reports you can connect to practically and data source as long as you have an ODBC driver for it.
BO Enterprise is very scalable both vertically and horizontally. This said, you need to configure and scale the system according to the amount of users and throughput you are going to have.
I'm not saying it's the best BI tool out there. I just think that you need to compare apples to apples, not apples with pears. At the end of the day you have to define your requirements in detail, then go looking for a suitable BI tool to suit those needs.
As I said you can point BO (especially Crystal Reports) to any data source. So in the real world (real sense) you don't require a DWH. Obviously if you are using SAP, then you are more than likely to have a DWH of some description.
There are enough companies out there using BO, who do not have a DWH and do NOT use SAP.
BO is one of the older "traditional" technologies (by traditional I mean those Data Warehousing tools that were developed in 70-s and 80-s prior to the emergence of "in-memory" technologies like QlikView). Back then, computer resources were limited and expensive and human resources were unlimited and relatively inexpensive. Hence, the overall "theme" for those tools is - if you put a lot of efforts into architecture, design, analysis and development, you'll build a decent end result.
QlikView, on the other side, is based on a newer paradigm, when computer resources are virtually unlimited and cheap, while human resources are limited and expensive. Hence, our "theme" is - we can make the hardware work hard and develop killer applications in days and weeks, instead of in week and months.
The rest (universes, GUI, etc) is semantics and feature juggling.
Bottom line is - QlikView is successfully replacing BO at many companies, to the great satisfaction of the end users.
If you are looking for pure adhoc reporting where users would be using the tool just to extract data in excel format BusinessObjects serves the purpose.
I know BusinessObjects is capable of doing a lot more, but most of the users use it just to extract data and feed it into their Powerpoint charts.
Complicated logics can be put on to the BusinessObjects Universe making it easy for users just to select the objects and creating their own reports. These reports can be saved, scheduled or used in a dashboard.
If the users has licenses of Xcelsius, then they can leverage the Query as a web service to feed data to Xcelsius from the already existing BusinessObjects Universe.
BusinessObjects also has LiveOffice as a plugin which enables users to Import WebI report into excel without actually logging into InfoView.
QlikView is a completely different tool. There is no comparison between QlikView and BusinessObjects.
The first reply rightly says it you cant compare apple with bannana.
In QlikView the dashboard would be pre built by the developers, users can change the filters to do their analysis.
They cant really add more data on the fly as QlikView scripting is not that easy when large volumes of data and complicated logic comes in.
As far as the security is concerend both would be the same.
Rest all completely depends on the requirement.
Check the QlikView sample dashboard.
Would appreciate if you send us a copy of your analysis :-D
Absolutely! DataRoket connects the BO Universe through a data pipe delivering any data (oh, not to forget BO and Hadoop data). So you will have several different ways to access BO data... http://tinyurl.com/3har8tl
-Direct Universe Access.
-Reports as a Data Source
-Multi- BO Domain Document Lists as a Data Source
Each has its own unique benefits and ROI when combining BO data with QlikView capability (right down to the metadata). And the best thing is that the BO data looksgeneric, meaning the user does not have to know the BO Universe in order to use the BO data in QlikView. And the power is the ability to associate your BO data with any other data within QlikView.
Message was edited by: dkoeneman
Business Objects is an excellent BI report platform which can make any report,But the QlikView is better and faster than BO in the dynamic analysis.
About the chinese traditional,standard and complex report,BO XI's crystal report is more powerfull.QlikView can't meet the need of the bussiness.
About the dynamic analysis report,QlikvView is better than BO Xcelsius.However,the integration of BOX with the GMaps Plugin is better than the QV and GEO.
What's more,BO is cross platform,which can run in any operation system,QV just can run in windows.
Which tool is your choice?I think it depends on your reality project.BO is good at something and can do anything ;QV is good at something and can't meet all of the need.