Corcentric Source-to-Pay Platform vs. Zip Intake-to-Procure

It is well suited for applications which has centralized data system. For desperate databases, big performance hit could be unavoidable.Web based Sales solutions which could be easily unplugged from big infrastructure and to be used in field with no need of network connectivity or front office availability would be ideal candidates for CPQ

Zip can be used for routing all vendor-level approvals for new vendors and all renewals across our organization. It can also be helpful for managing all purchases from existing vendors. For non-spend related approvals, it’s not as well suited. Zip was definitely designed for procurement workflows. They also have a vendor management portal that links up directly to something like NetSuite for management and visibility.

• Pricing engine is a big plus in CPQ.
• The flex modeling supported in CPQ increases the model efficiency by eliminating unwanted options
• Integrating external tools into selectica by exporting out xmls make it easier

• No coding - Ability for the administrator to make changes without development resources helps us be agile as a procurement org.
• Visibility to the user in a great user interface
• Accountability (helps us track SLAs on response time), Audit trails keeping track of everything
• The implementation team was incredible, as is ongoing support. They want you to succeed in your goals vs. just implement their tool

• Model builder's sluggishness.

• There are some duplicated fields such as anticipated total spend vs. price line item breakdown that asks for the same thing. This is a little bit tedious
• Does not show which invoices got processed and applied to open POs
• Does not integrate / migrate special custom fields within Zip Intake-to-Procure into other tech stacks (NetSuite)

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

Unless CPQ is available on cloud or available as platform as service, I am less likely to consider it again. The initial cost involved is high and also the time required for that.

Incredibly responsive and helpful.

Incentivized

Invited by the Vendor

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

I used Saleslogix.

I prefer Zip for its for its user-friendly interface and ease of adoption, especially if the organization values a simpler and more intuitive system for users across various departments. Comparatively, Zip is a more budget-friendly solution compared to some enterprise-level systems like SAP ARIBA or Oracle PeopleSoft, especially for smaller or mid-sized organizations with specific procurement needs.

Incentivized

Independently Invited by TrustRadius

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info

• yes, faster lead conversion as Field sales team rely less on main office
• reduced sales cycle.
• Reduced Sales overheads, deal closure can happen at client location.

• Visibility for all necessary approvers and reviewers of the process.
• Lack of open API to other systems (i.e Mondays, Smartsheet) is causing concerns for team that might want to move away from current tool.
• No 3rd party implementation required is huge cost / time savings.

Incentivized

Invited by the Vendor

A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info