Vendor Selection Matrix Relational OLTP Mid-Market DBMS Scope: Global 2014

Transcription

1 Vendor Selection Matrix Relational OLTP Mid-Market DBMS Scope: Global 2014 Dr. Thomas Mendel Ph.D. Managing Director June , Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 1

2 Market Overview: Relational OLTP Mid-Market DBMS Mature market with many long-established competitors. Current market size: $ 7,8 billion in software licenses, maintenance and product-related services. 10% annual growth rates. Strong client interest despite other database hype topics like No-SQL, Big Data and Analytics. Many clients have very important vested interests in databases for mission-critical apps. 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 2

3 DBMS Research In Action uses the following definitions: DataBase Management Systems (DBMS) are specially designed software applications that interact with the user, other applications, and the database itself to capture and analyze data A relational database is a database that has a collection of tables of data items, all of which is formally described and organized according to the relational model. Data in a single table represents a relation, from which the name of the database type comes. In typical solutions, tables may have additionally defined relationships with each other. OnLine Transaction Processing (OLTP) is a class of information systems that facilitate and manage transaction-oriented applications, typically for data entry and retrieval transaction processing. The mid-market companies are those with revenues between US$ 10 million and US$ 1 billion per year. 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 3

4 DBMS: Evaluation Criteria Business Case TCO Assessment Market Share & Growth Company Viability Risk & Compliance Customer View: Price versus Value Operation Features & Functions Implementation & Upgrades Differentiation & USP Customer View: Support Quality Customer View: Customer Satisfaction Objective analysis regarding the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of the solution. How big is the market share and is it growing above market rate? How likely in the long-term survival of the company and/or the solution? Does the solution satisfy today's risk and compliance needs? How do customers rate the relationship between the price and perceived value of the solution? Does the solution cover all necessary features and functions expected by the customers? How easy is the implementation and the upgrade of the solution? Does the solution have a Unique Selling Proposition (USP) and clear differentiators? How do customers rate the quality of the product support provided by the vendor? How satisfied are customers with the solution and the vendor? 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 4

5 DBMS: Features & Functions 1. Scalability 2. Performance 3. Supported Platforms 4. Resilience 5. Cloud Service Broker Support 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 5

6 BUSINESS CASE Vendor Selection Matrix Relational OLTP Mid-Market DBMS: Results 5,00 FUTURE PROMISE MARKET LEADERSHIP MS SQL Server 3,00 Ingres MySQL (Oracle) Progress SAP MaxDB PostgreSQL Informix (IBM) Maria DB Percona Firebird Business Case Operation Total MS SQL Server 4,55 4,58 9,13 Progress 4,35 4,57 8,92 SAP MaxDB 4,25 4,36 8,61 Informix (IBM) 3,55 3,94 7,49 MySQL (Oracle) 4,00 3,38 7,38 Maria DB 3,50 3,63 7,13 Percona 3,40 3,43 6,83 PostgreSQL 3,40 3,22 6,62 Firebird 2,45 2,55 5,00 Ingres 2,65 2,27 4,92 THE PAST OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE 1,00 1,00 3,00 5,00 OPERATION 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 6

7 DBMS: Results The Top 5 Vendors: 1. Microsoft SQL Server. Market share leader with high growth. High customer satisfaction. Big development effort to enhance functionality while remaining low price. Many partners complement the ecosystem. 2. Progress. Many satisfied customers over a long history. Strong position in the embedded market with many partners. Special focus on the Mid-market. Great Return On Investment (RoI). 3. SAP Max DB. Mixed product history with many strategy changes. Currently used by many SAP-internal applications and mature R/3 implementations. SAP positions the product as a stepping stone for HANA and has a new market entry for the Mid-market with flexible licensing. The low admin cost and the robustness, makes this an interesting solution for clients looking for European compliance. 4. Oracle MYSQL. Strong history as an Open Source solution, but suffering badly on all fronts since the acquisition by Oracle. Low customer satisfaction combined with high cost drive many clients to look for alternatives. 5. IBM Informix. Strong IBM brand and big market share, but IBM is trying to convent clients to other IBM database solutions which creates confusion. 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 7

8 DBMS: Detailed Results (I) Weighting Firebird Informix (IBM) Ingres Maria DB MS SQL Server Business Case TCO Assessment 25% 3 0,75 4 1,00 3 0,75 4 1,00 5 1,25 Market Share & Growth 15% 3 0,45 3 0,45 3 0,45 2 0,30 5 0,75 Company Viability 15% 2 0,30 5 0,75 2 0,30 4 0,60 5 0,75 Risk & Compliance 20% 1 0,20 3 0,60 2 0,40 3 0,60 4 0,80 Customer View: Price versus Value 25% 3 0,75 3 0,75 3 0,75 4 1,00 4 1,00 100% 2,45 3,55 2,65 3,50 4,55 Operation Features & Functions 35% 3 1,05 4,4 1,54 3,2 1,12 3,8 1,33 3,8 1,33 Implementation & Upgrades 15% 3 0,45 3 0,45 3 0,45 3 0,45 5 0,75 Differentiation & USP 15% 2 0,30 4 0,60 1 0,15 3 0,45 5 0,75 Customer View: Support Quality 15% 1 0,15 5 0,75 1 0,15 4 0,60 5 0,75 Customer View: Customer Satisfaction 20% 3 0,60 3 0,60 2 0,40 4 0,80 5 1,00 100% 2,55 3,94 2,27 3,63 4,58 Scale Explanation: 1 (Low) To 5 (High) 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 8

9 DBMS: Detailed Results (II) Weighting MySQL (Oracle) Percona PostgreSQL Progress SAP MaxDB Business Case TCO Assessment 25% 3 0,75 4 1,00 4 1,00 5 1,25 4 1,00 Market Share & Growth 15% 5 0,75 1 0,15 4 0,60 3 0,45 3 0,45 Company Viability 15% 5 0,75 3 0,45 3 0,45 4 0,60 5 0,75 Risk & Compliance 20% 5 1,00 3 0,60 3 0,60 4 0,80 4 0,80 Customer View: Price versus Value 25% 3 0,75 3 0,75 3 0,75 5 1,25 5 1,25 100% 4,00 2,95 3,40 4,35 4,25 Operation Features & Functions 35% 3,8 1,33 3,8 1,33 3,2 1,12 4,2 1,47 4,6 1,61 Implementation & Upgrades 15% 3 0,45 3 0,45 4 0,60 5 0,75 4 0,60 Differentiation & USP 15% 4 0,60 3 0,45 3 0,45 4 0,60 4 0,60 Customer View: Support Quality 15% 3 0,45 4 0,60 2 0,30 5 0,75 5 0,75 Customer View: Customer Satisfaction 20% 2 0,40 3 0,60 3 0,60 5 1,00 4 0,80 100% 3,23 3,43 3,07 4,57 4,36 Scale Explanation: 1 (Low) To 5 (High) 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 9

10 The Research In Action GmbH Vendor Selection Matrix Methodology The Research In Action Vendor Selection Matrix does not evaluate every single vendor in a given market. Rather, the model examines the most important competitors for a given set of challenges. We conduct primary research to develop a list of most important vendors in a given market. The final list of companies to be evaluated is then created based on market presence and growth, proven innovation capabilities, customer mindshare and customer feedback. We disregard startups with no or few referenceable customers and vendors that do not fit the solution requirements. The set of evaluation criteria are then reviewed and if necessary adjusted. The same is done for the weightings. We then score the vendors on a scale from 1 to 5. We finally provide future guidance through a positive, neutral or negative overall outlook score. Vendor Selection Matrix Disclaimer: Research In Action GmbH does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in our research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings. The information contained in this research has been obtained from both enterprise as well as vendor sources believed to be reliable. Research In Action GmbH s research publications consist of the analysts opinions and should not be considered as statements of fact. The opinions expressed are subject to change without further notice. Research In Action GmbH disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 2014, Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 10

11 Contact Dr. Thomas Mendel Ph.D RESEARCH IN ACTION Research In Action GmbH Hauptstrasse Hartenfels Germany Office: Fax: , Research In Action GmbH Reproduction Prohibited 11