We performed a comparison between Oracle Database Appliance 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 Oracle database is able to get the data, process it, and return it to the company's CEO's and CFO's within a single day, and thus they are able to find out yesterday's P and L by today. It has drastically reduced the amount and time of processing from seven days to one day."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"The solution is simple to use and easy to maintain."
"We use the solution for our Java applications."
"The initial setup was straightforward and quick - I was able to configure everything within an hour."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to combine all the data without the need for additional devices."
"Oracle Database Appliance provides high stability."
"The solution is stable. The product is scalable. The technical support is very helpful. The initial setup is straightforward. I consider the product a strong solution for our customers."
"I like how it blends no-code and ABAP code for complex transformations during data loading."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that it's robust."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is easier to maintain than traditional SAP products."
"It is a very stable solution."
"We can get good visualization and less redundant data."
"It is a stable solution...The initial setup was easy."
"The main thing would be to make ODA more affordable, to make it a more economical machine. Also, I would like to see virtualization, so you could implement all of your functions on one machine. Finally, improvement in the speed and performance would be good."
"Oracle Database Appliance patching comes out two to three months after the regular patching cycle."
"Technical support is not so great. It could be much better. The maintenance, for an enterprise system, isn't so great. It's also extremely expensive."
"Virtualization features could also be improved. A web-based GUI would be a good start."
"Oracle's product support is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Sometimes, we cannot upgrade or patch it easily. The performance needs to improve."
"The product's pricing is too high. We plan to migrate to another database in three to four years."
"The product is quite complex to set up, initially. It would be ideal if it was simpler."
"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."
"The dashboard should be simplified and made easier for exploration and decision making."
"The cost of the product might be an area that might introduce some restrictions or limitations to customers, making it one of the aspects where improvements are required."
"We cannot integrate with third-party tools like Python or advanced integration options. You can't fine-tune tables within BW or generate specific views or reports."
"Other competitors provide better solutions that are more up to date with current technology."
"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."
"Challenges arise with real-time client requirements when clients are accustomed to Microsoft Excel's extensive features for data analysis. They expect similar flexibility and customization in the solution, particularly regarding headers displaying keys and descriptions or just keys. Achieving this level of customization can be challenging, and it's an area that may need improvement."
"The licensing cost could be made better."
Oracle Database Appliance is ranked 7th in Data Warehouse with 40 reviews while SAP BW4HANA is ranked 8th in Data Warehouse with 37 reviews. Oracle Database Appliance is rated 8.0, while SAP BW4HANA is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Oracle Database Appliance writes "Simplifies database management tasks and provides high availability and disaster recovery". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP BW4HANA writes "Performs all necessary data warehouse tasks and offers additional functionalities". Oracle Database Appliance is most compared with Oracle Exadata, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Dremio, Actian Ingres and Vertica, whereas SAP BW4HANA is most compared with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Snowflake, SAP HANA, Amazon Redshift and SQL Server. See our Oracle Database Appliance 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.
