Ayasdi Core vs. OpenText Magellan

Well suited: 1. If data set is not yet well organized. 2. Hypothesis is not yet established. 3. Need to visually explore to find patterns of data (often when analysts have no good understanding of data) 4. When [you need] to analyze events with a timeframe (specifically a sequence of events as a transaction) Less appropriate 1. If a data set is very large, such as Hadoop data, it becomes hard to manage data pipeline and process to feed the data into Ayasdi. To be feed into Ayasdi, data should be aggregated or organized to some level.

Incentivized

If you do not have a large budget and are a large organization, I would steer clear of Actuate. If you are looking to do very complex washboarding, I would not use them. Your developers have to be very skilled to work with this. Plan to bring in consultants if necessary to help your process. Adhoc reporting is weak. If your pricing is user based and you expand, this could be very expensive.

• Ayasdi Core provides an easy way to get some insight on data. Typically analytics may require having a model or hypothesis before starting to look into the data, but Ayasdi lets you just feed the data first then start seeing what the data looks like.
• Ayasdi Core's topological network visualization is quite unique. It allows you to explore patterns and potential relations between multiple data elements. A user can also dynamically navigate data with different aspects on the web.
• The Web version of Ayasdi is easy to use, stable, and fast. It hasn't crashed even when we feed it a lot of data sets, although it took time.

Incentivized

• The report outputs can vary across different types such as HTML, PDF, and Excel
• Their open source offering is very sufficient
• There are great boards and blogs for developers and engineers to expand and use their features.
• The people from the company that I've worked with are professional and courteous.

Incentivized

• Use of Python SDK is required to feed data into Ayasdi, but it lacks training materials or sample codes for a novice to get started.
• Although Web UI of Ayasdi is looking good, often it freezes when the user runs an analysis. It doesn't crash but the web page needs to be refreshed to see the progress of analysis.
• Algorithms provided by Ayasdi, such as metrics types, lens types need to be explained (what they are and what their strengths and weaknesses are). We had to Google or do research on our own to understand what they are.

Incentivized

• The documentation on all the available features, but most importantly on the scripting side, can be improved
• The standard look & feel of some basic options, like parameter selection or sorting and filtering, looks dated and can't be customized
• The server portal needs to provide better tools
• More integration is needed with other OpenText products

Incentivized

I am no longer working for the company that was using Actuate but I believe they would continue to use it because the stitching costs would be to high. It would require a complete rewrite of the reports and the never version of Actuate (BIRT) even required an almost complete report rewrite

Incentivized

It is quite intuitive to use. It is fit specifically for doing sentiment, emotion, and intention analysis as well as text classification and text summarization. I would have given 10 if it is fit for the purpose of doing image processing and analysis as well. There is a huge market to analyze video and image data.

Incentivized

Always there on the front and backend for us and the client.

We had a working group that has been using R studio for the general purpose of statistical analysis in our organization. Although it is a great tool that provides enriched function sets, it is time-consuming for our clinical analysts to learn the tool to see the first result. R is somewhat of a developer-oriented/friendly tool. Ayasdi is friendly to a domain analyst or end users. Plus, support and consulting from Ayasdi were excellent so that we could get knowledge from them immediately whenever we needed.

Incentivized

It is vastly superior to these in many ways, for complex reporting it is a much more sophisticated solution. Visualizations are very good. Javascript extensibility is very powerful, others don't support this or as well. Pentaho and MS are both OLAP oriented. Pentaho is moving more toward big data, which was not our primary focus. Others are stuck in the Crystal Reports Band metaphor.

• Actuate can handle 50 to 60 sub reports inside a report very well.
• Dynamically creating the datasource, chart, graph, reports are the main advantages. We can do any level of drilling, and can create a performance matrix dashboard efficiently.