We performed a comparison between Amazon QuickSight and MicroStrategy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two BI (Business Intelligence) Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution's most valuable feature is its flexibility to visualize certain logs."
"Amazon QuickSight has introduced a new functionality called Q bar, which allows the user to do natural language queries and get additional insights using some built-in generative capabilities."
"The product is easy to learn."
"The solution is simple to implement."
"It has a lot of valuable features, but the most important aspect is the affordable cost. This solution costs much less in comparison to the competitors like Qlik Sense, Power BI, and Tableau."
"The solution is very quick to turn around and integrate."
"I like that with Amazon QuickSight, you don't need to install an app to use its services. With other BI tools, you need to install the app, so Amazon QuickSight is better for me in this area."
"The most valuable feature I have found is the low-level securities are very easy to use."
"Technical support has sent us to rapid response before, when we really needed them."
"The dashboard features and functionalities that come through the MicroStrategy Suite are the most valuable. It can be used by end users with minimum knowledge of the product. They can run a report or create a dashboard on their phones, which is kind of cool."
"We use MicroStrategy as an integrated solution with some of their other CRM type applications."
"I find MicroStrategy the most suited to the enterprise-wide BI platform, because of its scalability and stability."
"The single stack solution will always be more profitable, scalable, and elastic for organizational needs."
"We are using it for operations analysis and sales data analysis."
"There are people who are using MicroStrategy as transaction services."
"Mobile brings reports/dashboards closer to the business user."
"It should support integration with Python or R."
"It can be made more user-friendly as some users might find this solution hard to implement. Qlik Sense, for example, is very user-friendly."
"There is room for improvement in terms of the number of visualizations and dashboards that are available."
"It is a simple tool with limited features. Its visualization set is very limited, and it also has limited functionality. An intelligence tool should not be only for creating reports. Currently, we have to do all computational and mathematical operations outside. We should be able to do such operations in an intelligence tool like this. As an intelligence tool, it should support dynamic refresh. QuickSight currently supports the refresh at a minimum of one hour, and it is not suitable for dynamic dashboards that require frequent refreshes."
"There should be better connectors for different data sets."
"There could be an end-to-end pipeline for data cleaning as well as presenting it using different visualizations."
"I would like to see a feature that allows us to save a draft version before making it public and publishing it."
"One area where Amazon QuickSight could improve is its formatting features for dashboards."
"We did have issues with stability, and that was because we were co-located with another business unit, and we outgrew them on the unit. So we had to get to a separate physical instance."
"The analytic speed would probably be what I would look for in terms of improvement because we have super huge data, and if I do not build views on top of data, then reports render really slowly."
"We haven't invested in the mobile platform. We want to invest, but the problem is the security. We are in the health domain, so we have PHI data."
"There is room for improvement on the graphs."
"The problem is the way that their metrics are designed. It can be difficult to understand what you're actually looking at. Then when you're comparing a document against the VI, you can't actually do that properly. So there are components, and there is a huge learning curve in the Enterprise Manager space. I think it would benefit them greatly if they were to exercise a significant amount of research and development in that space."
"Data preparation-wise, it was not so straightforward with respect to getting different sources. Preparing or transforming the data inside and then bringing it onto the dashboard was a bit difficult, and the experience could have been better."
"We would really like to see MicroStrategy have some support teams based more in Europe, because for now it seems that there is one person for the whole CE region. That is not exactly what we would like to see. We do know that MicroStrategy supports most places, either in the US or India, but those are different time zones, people, and cultures."
"I would like to see a single standalone application to control everything from the administration perspective, and also to develop new applications."
Amazon QuickSight is ranked 4th in BI (Business Intelligence) Tools with 24 reviews while MicroStrategy is ranked 9th in BI (Business Intelligence) Tools with 156 reviews. Amazon QuickSight is rated 6.8, while MicroStrategy is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon QuickSight writes "Useful for developing dashboards for various lines of business". On the other hand, the top reviewer of MicroStrategy writes "A robust solution for powerful data analytics". Amazon QuickSight is most compared with Microsoft Power BI, Tableau, Looker, Google Data Studio and Alteryx, whereas MicroStrategy is most compared with Microsoft Power BI, Tableau, IBM Cognos, SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform and Oracle OBIEE. See our Amazon QuickSight vs. MicroStrategy report.
See our list of best BI (Business Intelligence) Tools vendors.
We monitor all BI (Business Intelligence) Tools 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.