We performed a comparison between IBM Maximo and JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Asset Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."IBM Maximo is a very strong and powerful tool in the market…Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features are the ability to create work orders and preventative maintenance."
"The most valuable features of IBM Maximo are the overall power and interface, and there are a lot of different modules that we use that are helpful. Additionally, it's an integrated solution and it has a lot of capabilities."
"It can be particularly useful for power line operations, enabling linemen in the field to gather information and send it across the country as well as different parts of the world."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to correct maintenance."
"I have found Work Order management the most valuable feature. Additionally, it is a very robust and powerful solution."
"Its capabilities let us organize our work."
"The ability to configure and integrate it with other solutions for ERP."
"The product enables us to track our assets."
"The most demonstrable feature is the asset creation form, which is quite informative."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The documentation of the solution needs to be improved. It would be helpful. Additionally, more analytics would."
More JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management Pros →
"I feel that the interface is a little too complicated with a large number of fields to enter."
"Areas for improvement include: an enhanced Service Catalog on Mobile; Agent intelligence; better dashboards for KPIs."
"Coding can be complex when customization is required."
"The interface is not very easy or user-friendly and is in need of improvement."
"The pricing model of the solution has room for improvement as well as the after-sales support."
"It's quite reliable, but new versions often are not too stable. They bring in enhancements but they break other stuff."
"Maximo is a big system, so the initial setup is complex."
"IBM Maximo can improve the financial support and financial application, to make it more similar to an ERP as opposed to an EAM. Overall they can improve the financial processes."
"The product must improve the approval process of asset transfer and disposal."
"The solution’s depreciation calculation setup needs to be improved because it is slightly disintegrated."
"The UI and UX need severe improvements."
"The documentation of the solution needs to be improved. It would be helpful. Additionally, more analytics would."
More JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management Cons →
More JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Maximo is ranked 1st in Enterprise Asset Management with 23 reviews while JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management is ranked 5th in Enterprise Asset Management with 4 reviews. IBM Maximo is rated 8.0, while JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Maximo writes "Work order management and scalability enables the businesses' needs to be met". On the other hand, the top reviewer of JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management writes "The product is reasonably priced and easy to set up, but the UI and UX need severe improvements". IBM Maximo is most compared with ServiceNow, JIRA Service Management, ABB Ability Asset Suite EAM, NetSuite ERP and BMC Helix ITSM, whereas JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management is most compared with . See our IBM Maximo vs. JD Edwards EnterpriseOne Asset Lifecycle Management report.
See our list of best Enterprise Asset Management vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Asset Management 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.