SolutionMap Head to Head Content

Jaggaer Indirect vs. Sievo: Spend Analysis Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison

The bar for spend analysis software has risen considerably in recent years. Thanks to higher expectations for overall function enablement, enhanced reporting, artificial intelligence-based classification capabilities, and even predictive and prescriptive capabilities, a spend analysis tool designed even a few years ago may not stand the test of time as well as it might have in the past.

This makes the comparison between Jaggaer Indirect and Sievo all the more interesting. The good news for procurement organizations considering both solutions is that they perform at or above the Q2 2018 Spend Analytics SolutionMap overall — and individually help set the benchmark standard for certain areas. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head bout?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q2 2018 dataset, along with the commentary of the Spend Matters analyst team. These “Head-to-Head” columns share the insights of each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data along with the trademark quips that Spend Matters was better known for in its early years. So buckle your seat belt, prepare for some real data and expect a few sparks to fly as we pit Jaggaer Indirect against each other in the Spend analysis evaluation ring.

Not yet an Insider member? Here’s a preview: In most spend analytics categories — which include data layer, process support, technology and services — Sievo comes out on top (sometimes convincingly so). But in at least one area, Jaggaer delivers superior performance. And as you peel the onion between the two on a subcategory basis, the use cases for when one is likely a better fit than the other becomes clearer.

SpendHQ vs. Zycus: Spend Analysis Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison

Two decades ago, Zycus pioneered the original spend classification and spend analytics sector, providing companies with an alternative to Excel and Access for cleansing, classifying, enriching and analyzing spend data. At the time, what Zycus came up with would become a huge step forward not just for procurement technology but for procurement overall.

But since Zycus got its start, dozens of new entrants have pursued the spend analytics market, both independently and as part of broader firms. One of these entrants, SpendHQ, grew out of a consultancy, Insight Sourcing Group. Originally, ISG used SpendHQ as both an internal tool (by the ISG team) and as a leave-behind for procurement organizations. But today, SpendHQ is a stand-alone solution in its own right, with a growth rate significantly outpacing the market that has made it the first or second largest stand-alone spend analytics vendor. (We don’t count Zycus in this area anymore, since it has graduated to a full-fledged source-to-pay suite vendor.)

Both SpendHQ and Zycus beat the average functional benchmark score in Spend Matters Q2 2018 Spend Analytics SolutionMap. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head bout?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q2 2018 dataset, along with the commentary of the Spend Matters analyst team. These “Head-to-Head” columns share the insights of each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data along with the trademark quips that Spend Matters was better known for in its early years. So buckle your seat belt, prepare for some real data and expect a few sparks to fly as we pit SpendHQ and Zycus against each other in the Spend analysis evaluation ring.

Not yet an Insider member? Here’s a preview: In certain spend analytics categories — which include data layer, process support, technology, configurability and services – SpendHQ comes out on top (sometimes convincingly so). But in others, Zycus delivers a superior performance (both by small and large margins, depending on area).

And overall, the results suggest that the right solution will vary based on different organizational requirements. There’s no debate that spend analytics selection processes will reward procurement organizations that tailor provider selection to their specific needs.

The Q2 2018 Spend and Procurement Analytics SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 11 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist invoice-to-pay technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new invoice-to-pay product or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Tradeshift vs. SAP Ariba: E-Invoicing and Supplier Network Evaluation and Head-to-Head Comparison

In its early years, Tradeshift was a thorn in the side of SAP Ariba in a handful of strategic accounts. More recently, as Tradeshift transitioned from operating at least in part (previously) on the PowerPoint platform to its own, the provider has emerged as more than just a credible threat and is now an everyday competitor to SAP Ariba, Basware, Coupa and many others.

Tradeshift has real, proven capability today. Through the Spend Matters SolutionMap process, we’ve benchmarked its solution on a functional and customer satisfaction basis across hundreds of procure-to-pay functional and customer satisfaction areas 20 competitors. And when we talk about functional analysis, we’re talking about actual product demonstrations of real GA product.

SAP Ariba and Tradeshift are among the two strongest invoice-to-pay providers in Spend Matters Q2 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap on a functional scoring basis. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head battle, especially when considering core e-invoicing and supplier network capabilities as part of the invoice-to-pay solution area?

Join us in this unfiltered head-to-head SolutionMap results analysis from our Q2 2018 dataset, along with the commentary of the Spend Matters analyst team. We will be writing “Head-to-Head” columns on a regular basis, sharing the insights of each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers and providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters since its inception.

Not an Insider member yet? Here’s a preview: 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. In fact, SAP Ariba, on a straight line, “Deep” persona invoice-to-pay functional basis factoring into account all scoring criteria, is the top performing solution on an analyst scoring basis in Q2 2018.

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. Perhaps more important, 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.

The Q2 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 13 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist invoice-to-pay technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new invoice-to-pay product or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Ivalua vs. SAP Ariba: E-Procurement Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison

Few procurement organizations evaluate Ivalua only from an e-procurement angle. Most prospective customers are looking for integrated suite capabilities that the uber configurable and increasingly industry-specific procurement provider can bring. Moreover, Ivalua has unfortunately remained somewhat of a “best kept” secret in the procurement tech community, especially in the procure-to-pay (P2P) area, owing in part to the double-whammy negative combination of less brand awareness than others like Coupa as well as having a smaller systems integrator community to recommend it (although it has a long standing and close relationship with KMPG).

Yet overall Ivalua does very well in the Spend Matters SolutionMap. As of Q2 2018 Ivalua delivers the highest ranked source-to-pay suite on a functional basis (across spend analytics, sourcing, contract management, supplier management and procure-to-pay). But how does Ivalua stack up to the biggies like SAP Ariba in e-procurement specifically? Curious? So were we.

Join us as we put Ivalua’s e-procurement capabilities to the test against SAP Ariba. Today, we offer a preview of the Q2 dataset (also see the Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap) and pit Ivalua head-to-head against SAP Ariba. These recurring columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum of salty opinion. Here’s a preview: 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. But Ivalua more than holds its own in most areas and convincingly wins in one.

But real world procurement technology decisions are more complex that just module-by-module comparisons and geeking out over functional battles between two finalists across sets of hundreds of requirements. And this is where customers will likely gravitate to one solution over the other. So join us as we explore how each provider stacks up on a direct competitive basis and share our perspectives on which is likely a better fit in real-world circumstances.

The Q2 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 21 separate providers, including all of the “biggies” procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process. Whether you’re in the market for a new e-procurement product or want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Jaggaer Indirect vs. Coupa: E-Procurement Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison (Q2 2018 Preview)

Following the Jaggaer name change, some folks may have forgotten about the tech provider’s deep roots in the e-procurement sector. And no, we’re not talking about some evil clown-esque 6-foot walking beaker — sorry, Questie, SciQuest’s former somewhat loveable mascot, was just creepy — who had some superpowers over laboratory P2P enablement alone. We’re talking about the depths of catalog management, supplier enablement and other elements of e-procurement that made the original SciQuest stand out from the original e-procurement pack, albeit with a focus on specific market segments at the time.

But how well does Jaggaer’s e-procurement capability differentiate itself in 2018 on an overall functional basis? We’re excited to feature Jaggaer’s e-procurement module (for the first time) in the Spend Matters Q2 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap, publishing in the coming weeks. Today, we offer a preview of the Q2 2018 dataset (also see the Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap) and pit Jaggaer Indirect head-to-head against Coupa. These recurring columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum of salty opinion as we pit Jaggaer and Coupa head-to-head in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Here’s a preview: In certain e-procurement capabilities — which span catalog management, shopping/requisitioning, ordering, receiving, supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services and a summary e-procurement average — Coupa convincingly dances on Questie’s grave.

But in others, the victor is not as cut and dried, and certain use cases illustrate when Jaggaer can be particularly attractive, especially when coupled to the vendor’s integrated suite value proposition in areas such as supplier information management (SIM) and contract management. Moreover, Jaggaer Indirect is one of the higher performing providers overall in the Q2 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap and bests the majority of other SolutionMap participants in many of the functional areas in which Coupa comes out on top in a direct comparison.

The Q2 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 21 separate providers, including all of the “biggies” procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process. Whether you’re in the market for a new e-procurement product or want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

GEP vs. SAP Ariba: E-Procurement Technology Evaluation and Head-to-Head Comparison

GEP and SAP Ariba could not have more different e-procurement DNA. GEP, as we like to say, is the Swiss Army knife of procurement, combining business process outsourcing (BPO), consulting, managed services, market intelligence and procurement technology under one roof. SAP Ariba is the opposite: it has a legacy as a purely enterprise software company that had two major pivots, first to SaaS and later to the combination of cloud applications tied to a networked business model and value proposition.

This begs the question: How the heck can GEP compete against SAP Ariba — including winning on SAP’s home turf — when its ambitions are less focused than that of its competitor? The comparison between GEP and SAP Aiba in Spend Matters Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap on a functional scoring basis must not be cut and dried. Or is it?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q1 2018 dataset, supplemented by commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum salty opinion as we pit GEP and SAP Ariba against each other in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Not yet an Insider member? Here’s a preview: 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. But in at least one area, GEP takes the prize — which might be the secret to how it wins its share of customer battles.

The Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 19 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist invoice-to-pay technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new invoice-to-pay product or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Coupa vs. SAP Ariba: E-Invoicing and Supplier Network Evaluation and Head-to-Head Comparison

Coupa and SAP Ariba are among the two strongest invoice-to-pay providers in the Spend Matters Q1 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap on a functional scoring basis. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head bout, especially when considering core e-invoicing and supplier network capabilities as part of the invoice-to-pay solution area?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q1 2018 dataset, supplemented by commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum of salty opinion as we pit Coupa vs. SAP Ariba against each other. Not yet an Insider member? Here’s a preview: 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.

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). Overall, the results suggest that it is essential to evaluate each provider’s capability in the context of specific deployment considerations (e.g., global compliance, supplier network consideration, services invoicing, invoicing analytics).

The Q1 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 13 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist invoice-to-pay technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new invoice-to-pay product or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Oracle vs. Coupa: E-Procurement Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison

What was the Analyst scoring shocker in the Q1 2018 SolutionMaps for E-Procurement and Procure-to-Pay? Oracle. But is Oracle Procurement Cloud on the same transactional procurement technology and capability level as Coupa — or even higher — when it comes to e-procurement?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q1 2018 dataset, supplemented by commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum of salty opinion as we pit Coupa and Oracle head-to-head in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Here’s a preview: In certain e-procurement capabilities — which span catalog management, shopping/requisitioning, ordering, receiving, supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services and a summary e-procurement average — Coupa wins hands down.

But in others, Oracle surprisingly bests the pole position operational procurement car, bringing capability that takes the prize as the absolute “most improved” e-procurement set of technologies over the past few years. And when the checkered flag comes out — well, we won’t give that away just yet. But the scoring will surprise, we promise. (Hint: It depends on what data you’re looking at and what data you value in your own selection process, as the two providers have different strengths.)

The Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 19 separate providers, including all of the “biggies” procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process. Whether you’re in the market for a new e-procurement product or want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Basware vs. SAP Ariba: E-Invoicing and Supplier Network Evaluation and Head-to-Head Comparison

Basware and SAP Ariba are among the two strongest invoice-to-pay providers in the Spend Matters Q1 2018 Invoice-to-Pay (I2P) SolutionMap on a functional basis. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head bout, especially when considering core e-invoicing and supplier network capabilities as part of the invoice-to-pay solution area?

Join us in this unfiltered head-to-head SolutionMap results analysis from our Q1 2018 dataset, along with commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception. The most recent head-to-head comparisons include Coupa vs. SAP Ariba (e-procurement) and Coupa vs. Jaggaer Advantage (sourcing).

So prepare for some real data and expect a few sparks to fly as we pit Basware and SAP Ariba head-to-head in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Not a SolutionMap Insider member yet? Here’s a preview: In certain invoice-to-pay categories — which span 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 takes the yellow jersey. But in others, Basware is first in the peloton. And overall the results suggest that it is essential to evaluate each provider’s capabilities in the context of specific deployment considerations (e.g., AP automation-led initiatives compared with broader procure-to-pay considerations).

The Q1 2018 Invoice-to-Pay SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 13 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist invoice-to-pay technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new invoice-to-pay product or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Sourcing Technology Evaluation and Head-to-Head Comparison: Coupa vs. Jaggaer Advantage (Q2 2018 Preview)

With the acquisition of Trade Extensions, Coupa catapulted into the ranks of the sourcing elite almost overnight. Similarly, in acquiring BravoSolution, Jaggaer gained the prize for provider that balances depth and breadth across its sourcing capabilities most effectively. But how do the two providers stack up to each other in a head-to-head bout?

Join us in this unfiltered head-to-head SolutionMap results analysis from our Q2 2018 dataset, a preview of our not-yet-published SolutionMap, along with commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

If you need to know how these two top-ranked sourcing providers compare to each other, look no further. Here’s a preview, for those who have not yet subscribed to this new Spend Matters service: 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. 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.

The Q2 2018 Sourcing SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 16 separate providers, including nearly all of the must-shortlist sourcing technology providers procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process (as well as those they should consider but might overlook). Whether you’re in the market for a new sourcing product, want to augment current solutions with specialized capabilities or just want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

E-Procurement Head-to-Head Technology Evaluation and Comparison: Coupa vs. SAP Ariba

Coupa and SAP Ariba are among the two strongest e-procurement providers — and broader procure-to-pay (P2P) suites — in the Spend Matters Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap on a functional scoring basis. But how do they stack up against each other in a head-to-head bout?

Join us in this unfiltered SolutionMap results analysis from our Q1 2018 dataset, supplemented by commentary from Spend Matters Founder Jason Busch. These recurring Head-to-Head columns share insights from each quarterly SolutionMap report for SolutionMap Insider Subscribers, providing unique comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data, along with the trademark quips that have defined Spend Matters analysis since its inception.

So prepare for some real data and expect at least a modicum of salty opinion as we pit Coupa and SAP Ariba head-to-head in the Spend Matters evaluation ring. Here’s a preview: In certain e-procurement capabilities — which span catalog management, shopping/requisitioning, ordering, receiving, supplier network, configurability, technology (overall), general services and a summary e-procurement average — Coupa gets the nod as the king of the hill e-procurement hill. But in others, SAP Ariba takes the prize. And at the final bell — well, we won’t give that away just yet. But the scoring might surprise you. (Hint: It’s bloody close.)

The Q1 2018 E-Procurement SolutionMap benchmark is now based on an underlying dataset featuring 19 separate providers, including all of the “biggies” procurement organizations can expect to consider in a typical selection process. Whether you’re in the market for a new e-procurement product or want to know if you made the right decision for your organization, our SolutionMap analysis and benchmark data can tell you the answer. Curious to learn more? Don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Sourcing Provider Head-to-Head Comparison: Scout RFP vs. EC Sourcing

The boom of the “Nimble” buying persona first started in e-procurement and coincided with the momentum that gave rise to Coupa’s leadership position as a “must shortlist” candidate for procure-to-pay (P2P). Spend Matters describes the Nimble buying persona as typifying companies with often early formalization of process, limited technology investment to date and potentially decentralized operations. Middle-market companies are also quite often Nimble buyers. But regardless of size, procurement organizations that fit the Nimble persona look to cloud-based technologies that can deliver on speed, efficiency, low price and quick value.

Anecdotally, Nimble is the most common buying persona Spend Matters sees today.(We will have data to corroborate this in later in 2018.) Even highly complex procurement organizations are often willing to trade off unique requirements to conform to the Nimble norm. And Nimble is not just a top buying persona for e-procurement. Nimble-minded procurement organizations are increasingly looking at solutions that meet similar criteria in other technology domains, including sourcing solutions. Based on Spend Matters Q4 2017 SolutionMap for North America customers, two of the top performing sourcing technology providers for the Nimble persona are Scout RFP and EC Sourcing.

But these providers could not be more different when it comes to outlook, motivations, management style and, most important, technology and solution strengths and weaknesses. Join us as we take off the gloves and based on Q4 2017 SolutionMap data, put Scout and EC Sourcing “head to head” into the Spend Matters evaluation ring. We’ll start by providing a technology summary comparative rating of each provider and then explore business requirements and scenarios, calling out the winner in each circumstance. PRO customers with advisory can reach out for us to comment on non-functional/technical considerations.

Granted, there’s not a bad choice among the two for the Nimble buyer. But let’s put them to the Spend Matters test and see which is the best fit for different requirements. If you’re considering either vendor or sourcing competitors, including other ranked SolutionMap providers Coupa, Determine, GEP, Ivalua, Jaggaer, Jaggaer Direct, Keelvar, Market Dojo, SAP Ariba, Scanmarket or Zycus, look no further for a head-to-head evaluation and comparison that you can’t get anywhere else.