SPSS Statistics is a software package used for statistical analysis. It is now officially named "IBM SPSS Statistics". Companion products in the same family are used for survey authoring and deployment (IBM SPSS Data Collection), data mining (IBM SPSS Modeler), text analytics, and collaboration and deployment (batch and automated scoring services).
$99
per month per user
JMP
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
JMP® is statistical analysis software with capabilities that span from data access to advanced statistical techniques, with click of a button sharing. The software is interactive and visual, and statistically deep enough to allow users to see and explore data.
IBM SPSS Statistics stacks up much better and overall gives the user a much better as well as simpler means to achieve their end goal. It provides a comprehensive set of well tested data management, along with statistical procedures in an easy to use and all in one package …
The price of IBM SPSS and its quality-price ratio was one of the triggers for choosing the software over the competition. The ease of obtaining a demo of the product and the continuous training it presents was another of the key points in the decision making we made in the …
Its better for quick tasks, Psychology, Sociology, may lack in complex models, AI, or business-decision-making models. It's better for things that you want to compare, correlate or detect influence of one on the other. It's worse that R for complex models, custom models, big …
I use Stata for tasks that SPSS cannot support, but ultimately SPSS has a short learning curve, strong statistical processing, and a mature tool set. SAS is also mature, but more programming based. JMP tries to 2nd guess what I need. NOTE: R (open source) is a great option …
If I didn't want to code, IBM SPSS would be after JMP and Tableau, and before SAS and R. The user interface is very clunky compared to the analytics software I stated. You could definitely learn to do basic analysis faster in SAS than SPSS. I selected SPSS to test the …
Compared to other similar programs such as R or SAS I find that SPSS is more user friendly to the researcher. I also have noticed that SPSS is more commonly used in other companies and schools research studies. This is great because it can allow for a step by step replication …
I have also used RStudio and SAS previously. In fact, I'm currently using RStudio since our SPSS license has expired. SPSS lacks the capabilities of these other two programs and it is far less intuitive. Larger data sets can be analyzed with R and SAS, but using these programs …
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 …
For me, JMP is the best and easy way to run regressions. I wouldn't use it for other more advanced models. I decided to use it because we got it for free since we are technically an academic institution.
We actually use both JMP and IBM SPSS, but I think JMP's complexity lends itself to more in-depth statistical analyses. SPSS is designed for that as well, but we tend to use it more for quicker analyses, and we have found that JMP is far more powerful.
I described earlier that the only scenarios where I use SPSS are those where we have legacy projects that were developed in the late 90s or early 2000s using SPSS, and for some reason, the project (data set, scope, etc.) hasn't changed in 24+ years. This counts for 1-2 out of around 80 projects that I run. Whenever possible, I actively have my team move away from SPSS, even when that process is painful.
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
SPSS has been around for quite a while and has amassed a large suite of functionality. One of its longest-running features is the ability to automate SPSS via scripting, AKA "syntax." There is a very large community of practice on the internet who can help newbies to quickly scale up their automation abilities with SPSS. And SPSS allows users to save syntax scripting directly from GUI wizards and configuration windows, which can be a real life-saver if one is not an experienced coder.
Many statistics package users are doing scientific research with an eye to publish reproducible results. SPSS allows you to save datasets and syntax scripting in a common format, facilitating attempts by peer reviewers and other researchers to quickly and easily attempt to reproduce your results. It's very portable!
SPSS has both legacy and modern visualization suites baked into the base software, giving users an easily mountable learning curve when it comes to outputting charts and graphs. It's very easy to start with a canned look and feel of an exported chart, and then you can tweak a saved copy to change just about everything, from colors, legends, and axis scaling, to orientation, labels, and grid lines. And when you've got a chart or graph set up the way you like, you can export it as an image file, or create a template syntax to apply to new visualizations going forward.
SPSS makes it easy for even beginner-level users to create statistical coding fields to support multidimensional analysis, ensuring that you never need to destructively modify your dataset.
In closing, SPSS's long and successful tenure ensures that just about any question a new user may have about it can be answered with a modicum of Google-fu. There are even several fully-fledged tutorial websites out there for newbie perusal.
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.
collaboration - SPSS lacks collaboration features which makes it near impossible to collaborate with my team on analysis. We have to send files back and forth, which is tedious.
integration - I wish SPSS had integration capabilities with some of the other tools that I use (e.g., Airtable, Figma, etc.)
user interface - this could definitely be modernized. In my experience, the UI is clunky and feels dated, which can negatively impact my experience using the tool.
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.)
Both money and time are essential for success in terms of return on investment for any kind of research based project work. Using a Likert-scale questionnaire is very easy for data entry and analysis using IBM SPSS. With the help of IBM SPSS, I found very fast and reliable data entry and data analysis for my research. Output from SPSS is very easy to interpret for data analysis and findings
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.
Probably because I have been using it for so long that I have used all of the modules, or at least almost all of the modules, and the way SPSS works is second nature to me, like fish to swimming.
The GUI interface makes it easier to generate plots and find statistics without having to write code. The JSL scripting is a bit of a steep learning curve but does give you more ability to customize your analysis. Overall, I would recommend JMP as a good product for overall usability.
I have not contacted IBM SPSS for support myself. However, our IT staff has for trying to get SPSS Text Analytics Module to work. The issue was never resolved, but I'm not sure if it was on the IT's end or on SPSS's end
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.
Have a plan for managing the yearly upgrade cycle. Most users work in the desktop version, so there needs to be a mechanism for either pushing out new versions of the software or a key manager to deal with updated licensing keys. If you have a lot of users this needs to be planned for in advance.
I have used R when I didn't have access to SPSS. It takes me longer because I'm terrible at syntax but it is powerful and it can be enjoyable to only have to wrestle with syntax and not a difficult UI.
MS Excel with AnalysisToolPak provides a home-grown solution, but requires a high degree of upkeep and is difficult to hand off. Minitab is the closes competitor, but JMP is better suited to the production environment, roughly equivalent in price, and has superior support.
I found SPSS easier to use than SAS as it's more intuitive to me.
The learning curve to use SPSS is less compared to SAS.
I used SAS, to a much lesser extent than SPSS. However, it seems that SAS may be more suitable for users who understand programming. With SPSS, users can perform many statistical tests without the need to know programming.
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).
