We performed a comparison between Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse 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 solution's integration is good."
"It handles high volumes of data very well."
"We are able to monitor daily jobs, so if there is anything that needs to be done then we can do it."
"We have complete control over our data."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."
"One of the most important features is the ease of using MS SQL."
"It is not a pricey product compared to other data warehouse solutions."
"Data collection and reporting are valuable features of the solution."
"We benefited from BW/4HANA's ability to utilize predefined content inside. We didn't need to start from scratch."
"It is a stable solution...The initial setup was easy."
"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 solution's performance is really good. Also, it's easy to operate, easy to administer, and relatively simple to install."
"It is a stable solution."
"I like the reporting features of the solution."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"From an ERP point of view and a functionality point of view, it works very well. The benefits are in that of financial costing and material management."
"The product must provide more frequent updates."
"Some compatibility issues occur during deployment, so we need to build the product from scratch for some features."
"In the future I would love to see a slightly better automation engine, just for the data integration layer, to make it slightly easier for end-users or junior developers to get involved in incremental updating."
"Sometimes, the product requires rolling back to its previous version during a software update. This particular area could be enhanced."
"Concurrent queries are limited to 32, making it more of a data storage mechanism instead of an active DWH solution."
"I think that the error messages need to be made more specific."
"It could offer more development across the solution."
"This solution would be improved with an option for in-memory data analysis."
"Connecting multiple sources is a challenge because you have to go through a lot of different setups."
"The solution is not scalable. It does not have a data streaming feature as well."
"The tool is not easy to use for an end user."
"The tool is not cloud-compatible."
"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 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."
More Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is ranked 8th in Data Warehouse with 32 reviews while SAP BW4HANA is ranked 7th in Data Warehouse with 34 reviews. Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is rated 7.6, while SAP BW4HANA is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse writes "An easy to setup tool that allows its users to write stored procedure, making it a scalable product". 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". Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is most compared with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Oracle Exadata, VMware Tanzu Greenplum and Snowflake, whereas SAP BW4HANA is most compared with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics, Snowflake, Amazon Redshift, SAP HANA and VMware Tanzu Greenplum. See our Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse 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.
