Pentaho & BusinessObjects

Somebody told me that try to compare both tools.

I don’t know how to compare Pentaho with BusinessObjects, I think that is not an useful exercise, you can find tons of functional comparatives.

From my modest knowledge, Pentaho is this type of open source tools that have an excellent growth and that reachs a level of functionality/performance/reliability that allows companies to be used for different purposes.

If you try to compare it with BusinessObjects, I could say that Pentaho covers 70% or 80% of the functionality / capabilities. But, is it determinant? I don’t think so.

If you are a big corporation, your goals are clear and your IT strategy requires a business intelligence platform to cover (an ensure) a wide range of business needs, then you should get BusinessObjects.

On the other hand, you can be in some of this situations,

  • you have the capacity to assign one or two guys working on a business intelligence tool to provide some type of information but you don’t have (or it’s not worthy) to invest in a tool for it.
  • It could be for internal results that you don’t want to create overhead.
  • You are thinking on a business intelligence solution for a business problem.
  • You can do a pilot with a open source tool demonstrate some early results and justify the business advantage that you could get using this type of tools.
  • You don’t have enough money.
  • You are involved in a project and you need an interim business intelligence solution that at the end of the project you can throw to the garbage.
  • You are a little company and you need a solution that you install and works.

then, why don’t use Pentaho?

You always can change to other solution, or lose just less money than paying licenses from the first day.

In these type of situations Pentaho has a more competitive advantage with respect BusinessObjects

What means cloud computing for me

It’s something that is essentially presented as a “service”: platform as service, solution as service, wine as service….

But it also should have some technical features that makes you able to identify as “cloud”.

  • It’s offered in an independent platform.
  • There is proven security in terms of data and is privacy compliant (this is the main question of the clients).
  • There is the possibility to synchronize the cloud data with the local data.
  • It’s available off-line.
  • It’s mobile, you has to be able to access to it from anywhere.

If the service does not provide some of these features, the type of contract is “something as a service” but it’s supposed it’s not cloud 🙂

From my point of view, that I’m not involved in the complex processes of building neither of these products; I’m just considering some of these solutions for my client. That means for me that almost all the time, I’m reviewing contract details about how these services covers SLAs, availability, how they guarantee security, what are the penalties in case of unavailability, what is the minimum time we need to contract the services, how are the implementation processes and how is the service support organized,…. prices.

So for me the cloud is essentially another way to contract IT services, paying just a fee.