Anonymous UserChief Executive Officer at a manufacturing company
Anonymous UserDirector at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution has improved our organization by helping us cut hours and lessen our labor force. It saved us probably over $100,000 in just the last couple of years."
"We have fewer systems, less manual data entry, and less processing."
"Performance and good usability are the two most valuable features of this solution."
"The solution is extremely stable."
"It's actually a cloud-native solution and based on the community for development. It is a very good open architecture and able to interconnect with other systems. And it is very stable and very fast in terms of response."
"This product is leaps and bounds above the competition. Part of the reason is that it is built with modern technology. It has no legacy coding in it at all."
"The user interface is good and very easy to use."
"The platform itself is very robust and I generally like the reporting and analytics capability."
"It's intuitive, a very usable tool and it's easy to find the data you're looking for."
"The solution could use better reporting with standard reports. We use the Cognos platform in BI for a lot of our reporting. However, they need to have more robust standard reporting available to their user base."
"There is a lot of complexity in the configuration of this solution."
"It has missing functionalities. Specific countries, like Germany, didn't have the option to do payroll. Now we need to look for another product for HR."
"Setting up reports can be a bit tricky."
"Reporting systems should be improved. If you want to report it on paper, if you want something more BI oriented, more high level predictive or more data-driven, it should be improved."
"It is good that much of the development is based on community input but often that can lead to details being ignored and small, nagging issues are ignored."
"The security console should be made less complex."
"The UI, UX (user experience) is very bad. It is not very interactive."
"It's possible that the way things are integrated could be improved"
"Workday is an expensive solution."
"You have the license fee per module, and then you have a kind of annual training fee, which is a kind of add-on. I wouldn't say it is exhaustive; it is minor. Licensing is pretty transparent for most of the part."
"The pricing is good from an HR perspective, although management gets upset after spending $500,000 a year, every year."
"Its price is pretty high. It is more expensive than what is offered by other competitors in the market."
At UKG, our purpose is people — real people with real challenges, and a simple request. Help me keep my employees productive, connected, and happy. So that’s what we did.
We’ve created an unmatched suite of HR and workforce management solutions, backed by our people who care about yours. Our solutions deliver global workforce experiences that truly reflect the connection between life and work today. That means insights are deeper. Work is easier. And interactions are more meaningful.
UKG is ranked 7th in Benefits Administration with 1 review while Workday is ranked 1st in Benefits Administration with 12 reviews. UKG is rated 8.0, while Workday is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of UKG writes "Easy to use with good integration capabilities and excellent at streamlining protocols". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Workday writes "Simple to use with easy report creation and excellent AI". UKG is most compared with Ceridian Dayforce HCM, ADP Workforce Now, SAP HCM, SAP SuccessFactors and PeopleSoft, whereas Workday is most compared with SAP SuccessFactors, SAP HCM, PeopleSoft, Oracle Taleo and ADP Workforce Now.
We monitor all Benefits Administration 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.