Anaconda provides access to the foundational open-source Python and R packages used in modern AI, data science, and machine learning. These enterprise-grade solutions enable corporate, research, and academic institutions around the world to harness open-source for competitive advantage and research. Anaconda also provides enterprise-grade security to open-source software through the Premium Repository.
$0
per month
JMP Statistical Discovery Software from SAS
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
JMP is a division of SAS and the JMP family of products provide statistical discovery tools linked to dynamic data visualizations.
It is great because it has UI menus but it costs money whereas the other programs are free. That makes it ideal for beginners but I think that RStudio and Python are going to make someone a lot more marketable for future opportunities since most companies won't pay for the …
Compared to other, similar programs, JMP is outstanding in ease of use and ability to be used by almost anyone across an organization. It is more fluid, user friendly, and, most importantly, requires no coding experience. The only two areas where it is not as good as …
As a Data Analyst, it is my job to analyze large datasets using complex mathematical models. Anaconda provides a one-stop destination with tools like PyCharm, Jupyter, Spyder, and RStudio. One case where it is well suited is for someone who has just started his/her career in this field. The ability to install Anaconda requires zero to little skills and its UI is a lot easier for a beginner to try. On the other hand, for a professional, its ability to handle large data sets could be improved. From my experience, it has happened a lot that the system would crash with big files.
It is perfectly suited for statistical analyses, but I would not recommend JMP for users who do not have a statistical background. As previously stated, the learning curve is exceptionally steep, and I think that it would prove to be too steep for those without statistical background/knowledge
JMP is designed from the ground-up to be a tool for analysts who do not have PhDs in Statistics without in anyway "dumbing down" the level of statistical analysis applied. In fact, JMP operationalizes the most advanced statistical methods. JMP's design is centred on the JMP data table and dialog boxes. It is data focused not jargon-focussed. So, unlike other software where you must choose the correct statistical method (eg. contingency, ANOVA, linear regression, etc.), with JMP you simply assign the columns in a dialog into roles in the analysis and it chooses the correct statistical method. It's a small thing but it reflects the thinking of the developers: analysts know their data and should only have to think about their data. Analyses should flow from there.
JMP makes most things interactive and visual. This makes analyses dynamic and engaging and obviates the complete dependence on understanding p-values and other statistical concepts(though they are all there) that are often found to be foreign or intimidating.
One of the best examples of this is JMP's profiler. Rather than looking at static figures in a spreadsheet, or a series of formulas, JMP profiles the formulas interactively. You can monitor the effect of changing factors (Xs) and see how they interact with other factors and the responses. You can also specify desirability (maximize, maximize, match-target) and their relative importances to find factor settings that are optimal. I have spent many lengthy meetings working with the profiler to review design and process options with never a dull moment.
The design of experiments (DOE) platform is simply outstanding and, in fact, the principal developers of it have won several awards. Over the last 15 years, using methods broadly known as an "exchange algorithm," JMP can create designs that are far more flexible than conventional designs. This means, for example, that you can create a design with just the interactions that are of interest; you can selectively choose those interactions that are not of interest and drop collecting their associated combinations.
Classical designs are rigid. For example, a Box-Benhken or other response surface design can have only continuous factors. What if you want to investigate these continuous factors along with other categorical factors such as different categorical variables such as materials or different furnace designs and look at the interaction among all factors? This common scenario cannot be handled with conventional designs but are easily accommodated with JMP's Custom DOE platform.
The whole point of DOE is to be able to look at multiple effects comprehensively but determine each one's influence in near or complete isolation. The custom design platform, because it produces uniques designs, provides the means to evaluate just how isolated the effects are. This can be done before collecting data because this important property of the DOE is a function of the design, not the data. By evaluating these graphical reports of the quality of the design, the analyst can make adjustments, adding or reducing runs, to optimize cost, effort and expected learnings.
Over the last number of releases of JMP, which appear about every 18 months now, they have skipped the dialog boxes to direct, drag-and-drop analyses for building graphs and tables as well as Statistical Process Control Charts. Interactivity such as this allows analysts to "be in the moment." As with all aspects of JMP, they are thinking of their subject matter without the cumbersomeness associated with having to think about statistical methods. It's rather like a CEO thinking about growing the business without having to think about every nuance and intricacy of accounting. The statistical thinking is burned into the design of JMP.
Without data analysis is not possible. Getting data into a situation where it can be analyzed can be a major hassle. JMP can pull data from a variety of sources including Excel spreadsheets, CSV, direct data feeds and databases via ODBC. Once the data is in JMP it has all the expected data manipulation capabilities to form it for analysis.
Back in 2000 JMP added a scripting language (JMP Scripting Language or JSL for short) to JMP. With JSL you can automate routine analyses without any coding, you can add specific analyses that JMP does not do out of the box and you can create entire analytical systems and workflows. We have done all three. For example, one consumer products company we are working with now has a need for a variant of a popular non-parametric analysis that they have employed for years. This method will be found in one of the menus and appear as if it were part of JMP to begin with. As for large systems, we have written some that are tens of thousands of lines that take the form of virtual labs and process control systems among others.
JSL applications can be bundled and distributed as JMP Add-ins which make it really easy for users to add to their JMP installation. All they need to do is double-click on the add-in file and it's installed. Pharmaceutical companies and others who are regulated or simply want to control the JMP environment can lock-down JMP's installation and prevent users from adding or changing functionality. Here, add-ins can be distributed from a central location that is authorized and protected to users world-wide.
JMP's technical support is second to none. They take questions by phone and email. I usually send email knowing that I'll get an informed response within 24 hours and if they cannot resolve a problem they proactively keep you informed about what is being done to resolve the issue or answer your question.
Although I have generally had positive experiences with Anaconda, I have had trouble installing specific python libraries. I tried to remedy the solution by updating other packages, but in the end, things got really messed up, and I ended up having to uninstall and reinstall a total of about 4 times over the past 2 years.
If you have the free version of Anaconda, there is not much support. Googling questions and error messages are helpful, but there were times when I wished I would have been able to ask technical support to help me troubleshoot issues.
There were a few times when I tried to install tensorflow and tensorboard via Anaconda on a PC, but I could not get them to install properly. Anaconda allows you to create 'environments' , which allow you to install specific versions of python and associated libraries. You can keep your environments separate so they do not conflict with one another. Anyway, I ended up having to create several 'conda envrionments' just so I could use tensforflow/tensorboard and a few other utilities to avoid errors. This was somewhat annoying, because every time I wanted to run a specific model, I'd have to open up the specific conda environment with the appropriate python libraries.
In general JMP is much better fit for a general "data mining" type application. If you want a specific statistics based toolbox, (meaning you just want to run some predetermined test, like testing for a different proportion) then JMP works, but is not the best. JMP is much more suited to taking a data set and starting from "square 1" and exploring it through a range of analytics.
The CPK (process capability) module output is shockingly poor in JMP. This sticks out because, while as a rule everything in JMP is very visual and presentable, the CPK graph is a single-line-on-grey-background drawing. It is not intuitive, and really doesn't tell the story. (This is in contrast with a capability graph in Minitab, which is intuitive and tells a story right off.) This is also the case with the "guage study" output, used for mulivary analysis in a Six Sigma project. It is not intuitive and you need to do a lot of tweaking to make the graph tell you the story right off. I have given this feedback to JMP, and it is possible that it will be addressed in future versions.
I've never heard of JMP allowing floating licenses in a company. This will ALWAYS be a huge sticking point for small to middle size companies, that don't have teams people dedicated to analytics all day. If every person that would do problem solving needs his/her own seat, the cost can be prohibitive. (It gets cheaper by the seat as you add licenses, but for a small company that might get no more than 5 users, it is still a hard sell.)
It's really good at data processing, but needs to grow more in publishing in a way that a non-programmer can interact with. It also introduces confusion for programmers that are familiar with normal Python processes which are slightly different in Anaconda such as virtualenvs.
JMP has been good at releasing updates and adding new features and their support is good. Analytics is quick and you don't need scripting/programming experience. It has been used organization wide, and works well in that respect. Open source means that there are concerns regarding timely support. Cheap licensing and easy to maintain.
The overall usability of JMP is extremely good. What I really love about it is its ability to be useable for novices who have no coding experience, which is not the case with most other, similar, programs. It can output a fast and easy analysis without too much prior coding or statistical knowledge.
Anaconda provides fast support, and a large number of users moderate its online community. This enables any questions you may have to be answered in a timely fashion, regardless of the topic. The fact that it is based in a Python environment only adds to the size of the online community.
Support is great and give ease of contact, rapid response, and willingness to 'stick to the task' until resolution or acknowledgement that the problem would have to be resolved in a future build. Basically, one gets the very real sense that another human being is sensitive to your problems - great or small.
ANACONDA VS Alteryx Analytics: Even though I find Alteryx to be an excellent tool for managing extremely massive data, Anaconda is much better and easy for analytics. Anaconda VS. MicroStrategy Analytics: Compared with Anaconda, MicroStrategy Analytics is very difficult to use and counter-intuitive Anaconda VS. Power BI For Office 365: One of the main advantages of BI for Office 364 is its capacity to data connectivity. However, it's very hard to edit data connections, once BI for Office is deployed in other platforms
It is great because it has UI menus but it costs money whereas the other programs are free. That makes it ideal for beginners but I think that RStudio and Python are going to make someone a lot more marketable for future opportunities since most companies won't pay for the software when there is a great free option.
ROI: Even if the cost can be high, the insights you get out of the tool would definitely be much more valuable than the actual cost of the software. In my case, most of the results of your analysis were shown to the client, who was blown away, making the money spent well worth for us.
Potential negative: If you are not sure your team will use it, there's a chance you will just waste money. Sometimes the IT department (usually) tries to deploy a better tool for the entire organization but they keep using the old tool they are used too (most likely MS Excel).
