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 important feature is its ability to handle large volumes. Some of our customers have really large volumes, and it is capable of handling their data in terms of the core volume and daily incremental volume. So, its processing power and speed are most valuable."
"Since both Apache Hadoop and Amazon EC2 are elastic in nature, we can scale and expand on demand for a specific PoC, and scale down when it's done."
"High throughput and low latency. We start with data mashing on Hive and finally use this for KPI visualization."
"The solution is easy to expand. We haven't seen any issues with it in that sense. We've added 10 servers, and we've added two nodes. We've been expanding since we started using it since we started out so small. Companies that need to scale shouldn't have a problem doing so."
"The scalability of Apache Hadoop is very good."
"Its integration is Hadoop's best feature because that allows us to support different tools in a big data platform."
"We selected Apache Hadoop because it is not dependent on third-party vendors."
"What comes with the standard setup is what we mostly use, but Ambari is the most important."
"The most valuable features are the speed of reporting and the HANA database."
"One significant advantage of SAP BW/4HANA is the direct integration with the SAP HANA database, providing seamless access to real-time analytics. Additionally, it enables real-time data integration. We don't need to rely on historical data alone; we can provide reporting and features based on real-time information."
"The solution is easier to maintain than traditional SAP products."
"Out of the box, this solution has a lot of standard features."
"Some of the main features of this solution are that it uses HANA and it has good performance."
"I like that it's quite quick."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"We benefited from BW/4HANA's ability to utilize predefined content inside. We didn't need to start from scratch."
"The solution is very expensive."
"I would like to see more direct integration of visualization applications."
"In the next release, I would like to see Hive more responsive for smaller queries and to reduce the latency."
"There is a lack of virtualization and presentation layers, so you can't take it and implement it like a radio solution."
"It would be good to have more advanced analytics tools."
"I think more of the solution needs to be focused around the panel processing and retrieval of data."
"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."
"The key shortcoming is its inability to handle queries when there is insufficient memory. This limitation can be bypassed by processing the data in chunks."
"There's one area where the other vendors have an upper edge, which is the data lake. I think SAP is trying to figure out whether to stick with IQ, their own data lake solution, or push customers toward customer-preferred vendors, like Azure Data Lake, AWS, or any other provider."
"It takes too long to escalate problems from the first level of support."
"I cannot integrate it with my other tools. It's not possible to do something in the predictive analysis. Mobile reporting is also not available."
"It's complicated to use. You need to spend a lot of time learning about it. The interface could be improved. It's not intuitive to build a data model and use their ETL tools."
"Price wise, this solution is on the higher side."
"The licensing cost could be made better."
"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."
"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."
Apache Hadoop is ranked 5th in Data Warehouse with 34 reviews while SAP BW4HANA is ranked 8th 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 "Performs all necessary data warehouse tasks and offers additional functionalities". 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.
