The Highlight Reel: 6 Can’t-Miss Matchups from the Procurement Tech Evaluation Ring

In January, the Spend Matters analysts launched the “Head-to-Head” series, pitting providers against one another in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Using the latest SolutionMap data, the analysts evaluate providers against specific business requirements and scenarios to see which one emerges as the winner in each round.

As our midsummer round-ups come to an end, today we take a look back at some of the recent action from the evaluation ring.

Sourcing

Coupa vs. Jaggaer Advantage: Coupa joined the ranks of the sourcing elite with its acquisition of Trade Extensions, and Jaggaer did the same with its acquisition of BravoSolution. But which one wins out in terms of sourcing capabilities? Let’s see what the Spend Matters Q2 2018 SolutionMap data says.

“In certain sourcing capability requirements — including opportunity analysis, project management, supplier portal, spend analysis (lite), RFX, auctions, optimization, contract management (lite), post-event execution, technology, configurability, services and the summary sourcing average — Jaggaer Advantage puts a chokehold on its foe deep into the battle,” Jason Busch writes. “But in at least one area, Coupa sneaks in a stealthy nunchuck blow in the first round. And at the final bell after multiple battles, we can declare a winner here — but only by the slimmest of margins.”

E-Procurement and P2P

GEP vs. SAP Ariba: Now we have the “Swiss army knife of procurement” — that is, GEP — matched against SAP Ariba, an enterprise software company that pivoted first to SaaS and then to a combination of cloud applications tied to a networked business model.

“In the majority of e-procurement categories — which overall span catalog management, shopping/requisitioning, ordering, receiving, supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services and an overall summary e-procurement average — SAP Ariba disarms the GEP Swiss Army knife,” Busch writes. “But in at least one area, GEP takes the prize — which might be the secret to how it wins its share of customer battles.”

Ivalua vs. SAP Ariba: Ivalua has remained something of a best-kept secret in procurement technology, particularly P2P. But as of the Q2 2018 SolutionMap, Ivalua has the highest-ranked source-to-pay suite on a functional basis. So how does it compare to a software giant like SAP Ariba in e-procurement specifically?

“Across certain e-procurement functional requirements — which span catalog management, shopping/requisitioning, ordering, receiving, supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services and a summary e-procurement average — SAP Ariba, not surprisingly, comes out on top,” writes Busch. “But Ivalua more than holds its own in most areas and convincingly wins in one.”

Spend Analysis

SpendHQ vs. Zycus: This is a classic battle between the stalwart and the upstart. Zycus pioneered the original spend classification and spend analytics sector two decades ago, and SpendHQ more recently grew out of Insight Sourcing Group, a consultancy. But today, SpendHQ is the first or second largest standalone spend analytics vendor. Which one wins out?

“In certain spend analytics categories — which include data layer, process support, technology, configurability and services – SpendHQ comes out on top (sometimes convincingly so),” Busch writes. “But in others, Zycus delivers a superior performance (both by small and large margins, depending on area).”

E-Invoicing and Supplier Network 

Coupa vs. SAP Ariba: Both are top performers in the Q1 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap, whether you look at Analyst or Customer scoring. And both score in the Value Leader quadrant. How do their specific capabilities compare?

“In certain invoice-to-pay categories — which include supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services, invoicing setup, invoicing creation/capturing/submission, services invoicing & contract invoicing, invoicing collaboration, invoice validations/approvals, invoice integrations, invoicing compliance, invoice mobility, invoicing analytics, payment/financing and overall invoice-to-pay scoring — SAP Ariba sneaks in a knock-out blow,” Busch writes. “But in others, Coupa jabs and beats its foe into the corner, delivering punch after punch until the round ends (and even tosses in a few jabs after the bell).”

Tradeshift vs. SAP Ariba: It used to be that Tradeshift was just a thorn in the side of SAP Ariba for a handful of strategic accounts. But now it’s become a regular competitor to SAP Ariba, Basware, Coupa and the like.

“In certain invoice-to-pay categories — which include supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services, invoicing setup, invoicing creation/capturing/submission, services invoicing and contract invoicing, invoicing collaboration, invoice validations/approvals, invoice integrations, invoicing compliance, invoice mobility, invoicing analytics, payment/financing and overall invoice-to-pay scoring — SAP Ariba comes out on top,” Busch writes. “But in specific categories, Tradeshift wins the race. And overall, the results specific to core accounts payable and invoice/document automation might surprise companies that think experience and size triumph over youthful ambition.”

He continues: “The SAP Ariba vs. Tradeshift head-to-head shows that one size does not fit all for e-invoicing and associated capabilities. There’s no debate that invoice-to-pay selection processes will reward those procurement and finance organizations that tailor provider selection to their specific needs.”

Eager for more head-to-head vendor battles? Check back as we pit Jaggaer against Sievo, SAP Ariba against Ivalua, and Simfoni against GEP in comparing their spend analysis capabilities.

Curious to learn more about SolutionMap but not yet an Insider member? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Share on Procurious

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.