Conga Advantage CPQ vs. Reply vs. Vision-e Maps

It is well suited to providing quick pricing recommendations, allowing those who are quoting to get our agreements out efficiently. Where I find there may be some limitations is around the details that it uses to establish recommendations and the overrides. For example it would be nice to have a way to set overrides for those criteria like length of agreement, etc. and have it apply across the board

Incentivized

Reply works best for structured outbound to a defined ICP, where reps personalize the opener, then let multi-step cadences run across email, calls, and LinkedIn with reply detection and CRM sync. It excels for time-sensitive triggers, event follow ups, closed-lost recycling, and A/B testing to standardize winning copy. It is less suited to bespoke enterprise pursuits that need deep research or legal signoff on every touch, or to untargeted high-volume blasts. In those cases, keep Reply for light structure and handle core outreach manually.

Incentivized

• The perceived power strength is that it is supposed to contain CPQ, Contract Management, Document generation and template manipulation, and cash/invoice process all in one wrapped package.
• It was developed on the Force.com platform.
• They provide multiple releases of their product per year.

Incentivized

• To automatically sync our data, and keep records up to date, it offers a variety of native CRM connections, seamless integration with other tools, a robust API, and the power of Zapier.
• I'm impressed by it, because it includes all of the capabilities I needed, as well as multivariate testing and, most significantly, an excellent reporting system.
• It offers an extensive set of features for efficient outbound and inbound marketing automation.
• With reporting and lead qualifying, the automation component is pretty powerful.

Incentivized

• Our number one complaint with Conga CPQ has been speed. In my experience, Conga CPQ is extremely slow, especially for large orders.
• In my opinion, the configuration methods of Conga CPQ are outdated and error-prone. One literally puts configurations into string-based custom settings, including the API field names. This often leads to deployment issues and run-time configuration errors.
• In my experience, Conga CPQ is everything but simple to develop. You need things like a 12-step pricing callback to support custom pricing.
• In my experience, Conga CPQ support is not responsive.
• When it comes time to lock in a renewal contract for Conga CPQ, in my experience, they delay engagement, so you are truly behind the 8 ball when it comes time to decide if you are going to continue with Conga CPQ.

Incentivized

• Syncing to other programs. You cannot interrelate Reply with other software in a simple way. Zapier is required and even then it’s not perfect.
• Similar to syncing, there’s no way to export results of particular campaigns. This is awful. If I send out a campaign to a group, I’d like to export the results to enter into a CRM since I can’t sync the contacts. One of these features must be added ASAP.
• Organization. While Reply itself is user-friendly, keeping campaigns and contacts and results organized is not. You cannot organize campaigns or file them away when they are done. Therefore you have to delete campaigns to stay organized and lose results, which you cannot even export.

Incentivized

The rating is based on several things: 1) Ongoing support requirements being able to be addressed by cross training existing Salesforce administrators 2) Apttus superior corporate vision for the quote to cash space 3) Apttus execution of the corporate vision with automated agents (Max), and Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning offerings to leverage the investment in Configure Price Quote 4) Apttus corporate health and investment in the product line

Incentivized

Conga CPQ is a great tool but lacks good support and [a] very limited knowledge base which doesn't include day to day errors which users face, thus leading us to support and take more time in turn. Also cart performance can be improved drastically which will enhance the user experience as the user doesn't have to wait for the pricing.

Incentivized

Reply’s overall usability is strong. The interface is intuitive, and most features are easy to navigate without much training. Creating and managing sequences is straightforward, and the automation flow saves a lot of manual effort. Occasionally, the dashboard can feel a bit cluttered, and reporting could be more flexible. But overall, it’s a user-friendly tool that allows teams to get started quickly and operate efficiently day to day

Incentivized

I have not heard of any issue

Tier1/tier 2 support can only handle native functionality. Customizations have to be escalated to developers which aren’t included in the support program.

I go ahead and copy the people I directly worked with on implementation for assistance. I would rate them an 8 for support assistance.

I generally receive a reply in no time at all and found not only the support org. but the sales team to be extremely helpful. Additionally I found a great onboarding process with plenty of resources to consume.

We attended 5 hours worth of webinars early on.

We had to understand how objects worked to figure out how to structure our data.

I would have liked more in-depth training but it would have been an additional cost

Be iterative. Take the opportunity to build a catalog based on how Apttus works well. Learn the tool yourself or use an SI. Take the time to build a configuration / pricing migration tool with X-Author for Excel or roll your own. Stick with OOTB Apttus as any customization will cost you every time a new version is released

Incentivized

We selected Apttus CPQ over SteelBrick due to the simplicity of SteelBrick's out of the box pricing and ability to customize quoted products. As a global organization with selling a highly configurable products, we felt the ability of Apttus to handle our requirements as standard functionalty rather than a customization was a material difference between the platforms.

Reply is a very good and widely known platform. I find it to be a lot more sophisticated and composed. I believe this tool works great for both large and small companies, which makes it stand out. There are so many other tools that work great, but they are restricted to the type and size of certain companies. With Mailchimp the email chain automation was not up to the mark and we faced a lot of problems due to it. However, Reply has solved all those issues.

Incentivized

• The ability to generate engineered configurations that is right by construction has reduced the cycle time of the customer engagement. The fact that we are able to guide the process and end up with a validated bill of material reduces the iterations with the customers.
• As long as the validations rules are correct the generated bill of material is accurate. We are now looking at using Apttus to perform quality checks in our product rules since the tool is able to test different configurations quickly and efficiently.
• Configuration that use to take weeks and consumed valuable engineering resources has been transformed to become a customer facing application that is simple enough for customer to self-service.

• Reply.io has been a lot more effective than MailChimp in terms of the follow-ups for the email chains. We use them to contact the people who said they wanted to do business with us and MailChimp's emails usually went to Promotions on Gmail. With Reply.io, we overcame this problem and the open rate improved 30%.

Incentivized