We compared SugarCRM Platform and Zoho CRM across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: SugarCRM Platform is recognized for its customizable features, Jira integration, and export functionalities. Zoho CRM receives acclaim for its intuitive interface, customizable choices, cost-effectiveness, and extensive features.
Room for Improvement: SugarCRM Platform requires enhancements in personalization options, user interface, and customization capabilities. Zoho CRM users said the mobile app could be simpler and that Zoho could improve its data organization and automation.
Service and Support: SugarCRM Platform users are content with the assistance they have received and have not required technical support. Zoho CRM generally offers good customer service, with responsive support during regular business hours. However, some users had mixed experiences with knowledge and availability.
Ease of Deployment: SugarCRM Platform's setup is straightforward and can typically be completed in under two weeks. Zoho CRM's setup process differs in terms of complexity and time required. While some users found it straightforward, others mentioned that it took a significant amount of time, ranging from weeks to months.
Pricing: SugarCRM Platform provides more flexible pricing options with a fixed setup cost and monthly user charges. Zoho CRM is praised for its affordable pricing, being seen as competitive and reasonable. Customers appreciate the cost-effectiveness of using Zoho CRM in the cloud, which eliminates the need for hardware investment.
ROI: Reviews offered little information about the ROI of SugarCRM Platform. Zoho CRM enhances productivity and effectiveness, minimizing the requirement for extra personnel and leading to a positive return on investment.
Comparison Results: SugarCRM Platform is an affordable solution with a simple setup process and lots of customization options. However, it lacks user-friendly interfaces, and configuring user permissions can be complicated. Some users also reported bugs and glitches. Zoho CRM is commended for its simplicity and intuitive interface. It is more cost-effective and offers more features than many competing solutions. However, users have said Zoho’s scalability and customization options are limited.
"The most valuable features of Sugar Enterprise are the exports of graphics, statuses, complaints, and tasks."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is its low cost."
"The most valuable features of the SugarCRM platform include its flexibility in customizing fields, layouts, and dashboards."
"It works well with Jira. You can customize it to fit your needs."
"The most valuable feature is relation capability, which allows us to relay customers with invoice orders."
"The platform has a valuable lead qualification feature."
"The solution is always stable."
"Highly configurable, enabling graphically built workflows, and the writing of customized scripts if required."
"I think the whole pipeline tracking is most useful for us."
"Zoho CRM integrates easily with customer service workflows."
"It is customizable. We have customized the CRM according to our needs."
"Zoho CRM has a location-based feature where if I'm visiting certain customers in a day, it can indicate to me the most efficient route. However, this is if the location of all the offices or places is updated, it saves my time. The calendar in Zoho CRM is synchronized with Google Calander which is very useful for me."
"Its initial setup process for the cloud-based version is straightforward."
"Sugar Enterprise could improve by removing bugs and glitches. For example, a comment was made but in the comment section, it was never displayed. However, the problems we faced might not be the fault of the solution."
"You cannot include all your entities under one instance at the moment."
"I would like to see more integration on a mobile platform in the next release."
"In the next release, I would like to see personalization of information about customers or specific businesses or opportunities."
"It lacks customization, and this is the main reason that we are switching to a different solution."
"While it is already user-friendly, a slight enhancement in UI design, especially in terms of color combinations, could make the platform more visually appealing and comfortable to use."
"Zoho CRM has a rule engine or a place where you can set certain rules. That's not evolved very much. They could improve this within the platform."
"I'm not sure that there is scalability potential for enterprises."
"Zoho CRM’s customer service can be a little difficult to reach sometimes."
"The mobile application is a little complicated and could be simplified."
"Adding a new contract to the solution is quite complicated."
"We'd like the solution to be less expensive."
"The only thing I noticed was that it does not support multi-country operations. In Canada, for example, we do not use the term "state," but rather "province," and we do not use zip codes, but rather "postal codes.""
"We would like to always email users as soon as any new features are launched."
SugarCRM Platform is ranked 29th in CRM with 11 reviews while Zoho CRM is ranked 6th in CRM with 47 reviews. SugarCRM Platform is rated 7.0, while Zoho CRM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SugarCRM Platform writes "User-friendly and allows for creating your own modules". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zoho CRM writes "A highly stable solution that allows customization and data sharing". SugarCRM Platform is most compared with Salesforce Sales Cloud, whereas Zoho CRM is most compared with SAP CRM, monday.com, Bitrix24, Microsoft Dynamics CRM and LeadSquared. See our SugarCRM Platform vs. Zoho CRM report.
See our list of best CRM vendors and best Sales Force Automation vendors.
We monitor all CRM 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.