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 feature is scalability and the possibility to work with major information and open source capability."
"Most valuable features are HDFS and Kafka: Ingestion of huge volumes and variety of unstructured/semi-structured data is feasible, and it helps us to quickly onboard a new Big Data analytics prospect."
"The scalability of Apache Hadoop is very good."
"High throughput and low latency. We start with data mashing on Hive and finally use this for KPI visualization."
"The performance is pretty good."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the database."
"I liked that Apache Hadoop was powerful, had a lot of tools, and the fact that it was free and community-developed."
"The solution's performance is really good. Also, it's easy to operate, easy to administer, and relatively simple to install."
"The most valuable feature is that we can transform a huge amount of data and apply business logic as per the requirements."
"The most valuable feature is that it's robust."
"The ability to instantly pull data is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"I like that it's quite quick."
"SAP BW4HANA aids in managing data from ER to front-end analysis, contributes to ROI, and fosters business growth understanding. I like that the solution breaks down components to a very granular level, allowing for customization and implementation based on specific requirements. The solution is stable. The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features are the speed of reporting and the HANA database."
"Based on our needs, we would like to see a tool for data visualization and enhanced Ambari for management, plus a pre-built IoT hub/model. These would reduce our efforts and the time needed to prove to a customer that this will help them."
"From the Apache perspective or the open-source community, they need to add more capabilities to make life easier from a configuration and deployment perspective."
"The solution is very expensive."
"In the next release, I would like to see Hive more responsive for smaller queries and to reduce the latency."
"The upgrade path should be improved because it is not as easy as it should be."
"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."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"The load optimization capabilities of the product are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Support could be more reliable."
"Connecting multiple sources is a challenge because you have to go through a lot of different setups."
"The solution is not easy to implement. It requires a lot of learning at the beginning."
"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."
"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 speed of operations could be a little faster."
"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."
"I would like to be able to design new reports in a future release."
Apache Hadoop is ranked 5th in Data Warehouse with 32 reviews while SAP BW4HANA is ranked 7th in Data Warehouse with 34 reviews. Apache Hadoop is rated 7.8, while SAP BW4HANA is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Apache Hadoop writes "A file system for data collection that contains needed information and files". 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 Netezza Performance Server, whereas SAP BW4HANA is most compared with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Snowflake, Amazon Redshift, SAP HANA 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.
