Jedox vs. ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ)

Best suited for financial consolidation and / or as a highly customized and compact EPM / BI solution (up to 100 CCU) with individual workflows, planning and reporting functionalities, with moderate number of users (no restrictions for any industry, all industries are covered well). It also has advanced reporting & data analysis requirements and provides an integration and reporting layer of imported data from different external systems (via ETL). It can help with migrating your legacy Excel-based business models to the Web. It is not well suited for Enterprise BI applications with expecting >500 CCU (users at the same time working with the system) - this may cause serious performance issues, as all data is kept in RAM. Jedox is also less suited for applications with heavy document management requirements (document management is not an out of the box functionality in Jedox and rather requires custom development through custom widgets etc.).

Well-Suited Scenarios: Reporting to management where financial risk metrics are required. - Vulnerability prioritization when you need to rank issues by real exploit risk and financial/business impact. Less-Appropriate Scenarios: Fast-changing cloud environments where asset data needs updates too frequently for accurate models required all the time. - Incident investigation, as ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) is not designed for real-time check

• Using the Excel add-in means that our team was almost instantly productive, being able to use a familiar interface to present and manipulate data.
• Allows us to quickly do analysis and comparison of current and historic data.
• Really good to produce meaningful management reporting that can be adapted responsively to business requirements.
• Implementing Jedox in our budget cycle dramatically reduced the time and complexity of the process, while making it more transparent.

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

• Provides scenario-based modeling to measure risk, which can be reduced through patches or new controls.
• Delivers technical-to-business reporting that supports remediation planning and financial budget planning.
• Ranks vulnerabilities by exploit risk and business impact
• Quantifies cyber risk in financial terms using vulnerability, threat, and asset data.

• Diversity. Jedox can be applied to many different use cases from small to large deployments and from budgeting to enterprise class BI solutions. But rarely is one tool able to fulfill all of these requirements in one organisation. This value proposition can be complicated for prospective users.
• Awareness. Jedox punches above its weight in capability and scalability, but not enough people have heard about it and therefore procurement processes can be drawn out as a result.

• Dashboards can be customized to offer more options, especially for technical teams that require deeper drill-downs and also more simpler and user-friendly.
• Processing large data files can be slow sometimes, especially during large builds or bulk updates.
• Risk modules sometimes need manual intervention for multi-client environments, which can be time-consuming.

For a period of 5 years all our customers using Jedox have renewed their licenses.

To me Jedox deserves 10/10 because it is a consistent one-in-all platform with a modern look and feel. It is intuitive to use and allows you to make intuitive applications integrating traditional business intelligence with performance management functionality. It certainly has a short
learning curve, especially for those that are familiar with MS Excel. An example: I've lost count but Jedox it is available in more than 25 languages. Another: Jedox does not require programming skills... it is developed to be used by the business.

I rate ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) an 8 because it’s generally easy to use once the integrations are set up. The dashboards, risk scores, and financial impact metrics are very straightforward and help make quick decisions for executives. However, the initial configuration and model tuning can be a bit complex it's not a perfect 10 for me.

Jedox has
very few bugs. Reports are available through an Excel add-in, the web and/or
mobile device (IOS/Android). In my opinion, availability also means high
performance, not having to wait for the system to give you the required reports,
analysis, dashboards instantly.

Jedox is the fastest OLAP tool on the market. It can use GPU cards to increase performance even more

Jedox support in general is a professional and fast responding team. An easy-to-use ticketing system is in place. Bug-related questions are solved fast (responses come usually in a few hours after the question), but some questions / tickets, that are not Jedox-related bugs (for example some advanced questions about Jedox functionality), may be forwarded to Application Management team for further processing and then it may take several days or even weeks to get a response here -> there is room for improvement here.

The implementation of SSO, SAML Authentication, HTTPS, Server splitting (Frontend / Backend servers) could be more standardized and made more user friendly to set up (e.g. via setup guide). Otherwise the implementation of Jedox is quick and simple when compared to other similar technologies.

Calumo is similar product to Jedox. I have used it extensively in my previous role. It was a major contender when we evaluated a BI platform for NIDA. Calumo is a great product as well and it was a very close call. Where we found Jedox to be a better fit for NIDA was the ability to prepare dynamic reports with ease without the need to learn MDX which was used extensively by Calumo to make dynamic reports which expand or shrink based on the underlying data. Another major benefit we saw in Jedox was the whole ETL process could be managed within Jedox instead of doing it in SQL server which negates having a dedicated SQL specialist role when the scale expands.

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

ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) stacked up better than RiskLens, better for our organization, is mainly because it integrates directly with our scanners, SIEM, and CMDB, allowing automatic, real-time risk monitoring. It also combines exploit intel, asset value, and vulnerability data more efficiently, giving us clearer technical priorities for the business impact. We chose ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) because it provides faster, more actionable risk scoring with less manual modeling than RiskLens.

Scalability is often another word for speed. Given enough data, enough users or enough calculations, the tool becomes slower and slower. You will find that Jedox has a very high performance that can even be increased by the use of grafical cards. Other thaen that it does not only offer BI (looking back based on historical ERP data) but also allows you to look forward through integrated budgetting, planning, forecasting, workflow and collaboration. Not easy to find a tool that can support so much business functionality. So, also pretty scalable in that respect.

• Financial budgeting and Forecasting are done in a centralized fashion in Jedox now instead of a decentralized excel based approach. A lot of cost savings and improved reliability
• Easy to use self-help Dashboards and detailed reports
• Web-based reporting instead of excel based

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

• Improved alignment between IT, security, and business teams because risk is measured in financial terms, not just technical terms.
• It gives leadership clear cost-based risk metrics, making it easier to justify security budgets and prioritize projects.
• Initial setup and data integration require time and more disruption to the existing setup
• Risk models sometimes need tuning, adding extra operational overhead.