Back to Hub

SAP Ariba vs SirionLabs: Contract lifecycle management head-to-head technology evaluation and comparison

06/17/2021 By

The contract lifecycle management (CLM) space is exceptional because best-of-breed vendors definitively define what leading functionality is. Whereas, in other areas, suite players often perform at parity or stronger than standalone vendors — and, in the case of sourcing optimization especially, outperform the market. In CLM, the standalone vendors are the ones that set the current “bar” for the technology.

At the same time, CLM is also a less fully adopted solution area, and the offerings available from suite and ERP vendors can still deliver strong improvements compared with using no system at all. Contract management maturity is a key consideration, as some organizations simply need to start or hit moderate maturity levels before they can even think about optimizing their relationships and contract language.

The question then becomes: What is the value of using the CLM module from a suite or ERP provider vs. a standalone specialist, and which option is the best for my organization?

A matchup that encapsulates this scenario well is SAP Ariba vs. SirionLabs. Indeed, many customers that provided references for SirionLabs said they often considered SAP Ariba alongside their current vendor during selection, and both vendors have experience serving enterprise customers with complex requirements. We feel that merits a round in the Spring 2021 CLM SolutionMap head-to-head evaluation ring for our content subscribers.

Not yet a Spend Matters PRO or Insider member? Here’s a preview of today’s comparison.

In multiple CLM categories — which include contract information management, contract process management, CLM analytics and underlying technology — SirionLabs comes out on top. But in at least one other, SAP Ariba provides an impressive counterblow. And in specific functional matchups, SAP Ariba comes out swinging with unique strengths that illustrate its ability to address specific customer types.

Spend Matters’ head-to-head columns share the insights of each fall and spring SolutionMap update. Subscribers to our PRO analyst content and SolutionMap Insider content can read the head-to-head columns, which provide comparative cuts of SolutionMap benchmark data for two solutions. For each column, we provide comparisons against the S2P-wide benchmarks, comparative scoring of vendors across dozens of functional requirements, and our analysts’ take on how each solution holds up in the competitive ring.

This article requires a paid membership that has access to Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM).
Please log in or create an account to view this article
SolutionMap: Head-to-Head Comparison