We performed a comparison between Apache Hadoop and SAP BW4HANA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Warehouse solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are powerful tools for ingestion, as data is in multiple systems."
"The ability to add multiple nodes without any restriction is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"What I like about Apache Hadoop is that it's for big data, in particular big data analysis, and it's the easier solution. I like the data processing feature for AI/ML use cases the most because some solutions allow me to collect data from relational databases, while Hadoop provides me with more options for newer technologies."
"What comes with the standard setup is what we mostly use, but Ambari is the most important."
"Hadoop File System is compatible with almost all the query engines."
"The best thing about this solution is that it is very powerful and very cheap."
"Apache Hadoop can manage large amounts and volumes of data with relative ease, which is a feature that is beneficial."
"High throughput and low latency. We start with data mashing on Hive and finally use this for KPI visualization."
"It is a very stable solution."
"You can do hierarchical alert slicing and dicing out-of-box, which is not available in other solutions. I haven't come across that in Oracle or any other software provider."
"The UI is completely new, beautiful, and user-friendly. There are some other helpful features like global filters and advanced tools. We can perform custom calculations easily From a technical perspective, the performance has been enhanced and optimized for a limited number of flows. The content settings are more advanced, and there are so many other features that I can't name them all."
"We can get good visualization and less redundant data."
"It is a stable solution."
"It's quite scalable."
"We benefited from BW/4HANA's ability to utilize predefined content inside. We didn't need to start from scratch."
"The solution seamlessly integrates with SAP products."
"I mentioned it definitely, and this is probably the only feature we can improve a little bit because the terminal and coding screen on Hadoop is a little outdated, and it looks like the old C++ bio screen. If the UI and UX can be improved slightly, I believe it will go a long way toward increasing adoption and effectiveness."
"In certain cases, the configurations for dealing with data skewness do not make any sense."
"The main thing is the lack of community support. If you want to implement a new API or create a new file system, you won't find easy support."
"The load optimization capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The stability of the solution needs improvement."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"I think more of the solution needs to be focused around the panel processing and retrieval of data."
"It would be helpful to have more information on how to best apply this solution to smaller organizations, with less data, and grow the data lake."
"They have taken out a few BW functionalities when they redesigned this. The way of multi-dimensional thinking and star schema got a little bit lost. It may be because of the cost, but certain functionalities that were previously implemented from the BW side should come back again in the whole product. It is a young product. It is version 2.0. In time, I'm pretty sure they will come back again because otherwise, it limits the potential of the product, and I have to do a lot of modeling towards that direction. For me, the analytics focus is too much. It is not cube-oriented in that way, so its functionality is limited. It is not really technically limited in the back end; it is more limited in the front end. It has a data-mining mindset for SQL developers. The navigational attributes should be easy. It needs to be built in models. I see the data mark cube or understanding that the composite provider needs to be models in a cube coming back. The multi-dimensional star schema approach and the reporting need to be done as well as possible to leverage the star scheme below. This is definitely not understood by many consultants and even composite providers for star schema. They always think in terms of flat tables, which is limiting. You need to build the right dimensions, objects, and so on. If you can build this in BW4HANA, then you have this understanding that BW4HANA is not forcing you in this direction, but it should force you a bit better in this direction. Maybe a few elements which were in use in BW should come back again. It would help the community to determine the direction to build on the cube. You can have maybe 50 elements, and then you can expand it to what you need by leveraging navigation. So far, this functionality is a little bit limited in the tool, and it is not thought through, but I think it will come. They should also be adding more capabilities for the transformation between different objects. In BW, this is currently limited, especially towards composite providers. It is a bit complex basically in the building. You have to have a lot of knowledge as well as know how to do it better because it is a bit different from BW. There is not too much expertise currently in the consulting markets. Many are trying to build something, but it may be based on their knowledge of what they have from the BW and HANA side. You have to find the right mix from both of them at this time. We also have HANA Native. These are our two different sync sources basically, and we have approaches to connect nicely, but it is hard to manage your team because a lot of coaching is required."
"BW/4HANA could improve query optimization. For example, there could be an error message that pops up when you hover over it if any query fails. That would make it easier to find out what went gone wrong. Guided SAP help tools would make it easier for us to go forward."
"From a technical perspective, it could be even more related to legacy systems. The connectivity requirement is quite high and requires systems that are up-to-date."
"Pricing would be a good improvement. A lot of customers think that it's very expensive and especially support is very expensive."
"The solution is not easy to implement. It requires a lot of learning at the beginning."
"Connecting multiple sources is a challenge because you have to go through a lot of different setups."
"If I want to have good reporting, then I have to buy a separate license."
"I don't see SAP actively supporting the solution now...a better support from SAP would be appreciated."
Apache Hadoop is ranked 5th in Data Warehouse with 33 reviews while SAP BW4HANA is ranked 7th in Data Warehouse with 36 reviews. Apache Hadoop is rated 7.8, while SAP BW4HANA is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Apache Hadoop writes "Handles huge data volumes and create your own workflows and tables but you need to have deeper knowledge". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP BW4HANA writes "An easy-to-operate and administer tool that needs to consider revising its existing licensing cost". Apache Hadoop is most compared with Azure Data Factory, Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Oracle Exadata, Snowflake and IBM Db2 Warehouse, whereas SAP BW4HANA is most compared with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Snowflake, SAP HANA, Amazon Redshift and Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse. See our Apache Hadoop vs. SAP BW4HANA report.
See our list of best Data Warehouse vendors.
We monitor all Data Warehouse 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.