Coupa vs Icertis

• Ease of use. No IT support is needed. As the procurement manager, I'm also the Coupa administrator. I have the ability to configure, correct, manipulate, etc., the system to our needs.
• No on-going training. The system, both P2P and Sourcing are incredibly intuitive. Many SAAS modules change dramatically with each new version and require additional training. Coupa does a great job of putting updated, searchable documents on-line to augment any additional training employees may need.
• Rock solid stability. Coupa is never down, they far exceed the SLAs we have in place with them. I've never had a catastrophic failure or outage with them.
• SOX compliancy. Need I say more? My internal and external audit teams have given the tool more than a passing grade.
• Thought leadership. The tool is constantly evolving to live up to the high expectations of its user base. The Coupa Community has skin-in-the-game and Coupa listens to our needs/wants as well as adding their own cutting edge touches to the tool.

Read full review

• A good way to organize your contracts by type/business line/etc.
• Contract provision library is useful for reviewers of contracts - helps standardize language and approach.

Read full review

• Implementation using a third-party consultant was a mistake. Maybe we had the wrong consultants assigned to us but make sure you understand who is doing the implementation. Implementation is costly but extremely important.
• We often can have small issues with approval chains and they are hard to figure out. If there was more information on how to understand approval chains without reaching out to support, it would help.

Read full review

• Some features are unnecessarily limiting. For example, the inability to delete records or change fields later if it turns out there has been a mistake in how the contract was entered or the term was described. The Icertis form fields are NOT the contract record that is required to be kept. If someone makes an error, they should be able to fix it. The contract itself doesn't change, and that is the business record.
• Too much is built on the assumption that the person requesting the contract is the one with the control or ownership of the contract. It would be better if the person to whom the contract is submitted for review was the owner in the system.
• Not all requests will in fact end with a contract. Sometimes requests are started and the project is abandoned or put on hold for a period of time. More status fields that reflect the reality of contracting would be helpful.

Read full review

• The easy internal process to find. Given this is the same for all teams, I'd guess there is a positive impact from our Finance Team as they only have one tool they have to manage, pull reporting from, etc.
• Frustrating process, as mentioned at times this can be a frustrating tool to use, which I think causes a lot of employees (who are not on the Finance Team) to direct undue frustration towards the Finance Team, creating avoidable tensions.

Read full review

• Too new to product to have ROI estimates. Less than 1 year of implementation. But, I would say we have better ways to track our existing agreements with this tool.

Read full review