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.
$1,320
per year per user
Mathematica
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
Wolfram's flagship product Mathematica is a modern technical computing application featuring a flexible symbolic coding language and a wide array of graphing and data visualization capabilities.
$1,520
per year
Pricing
JMP
Wolfram Mathematica
Editions & Modules
JMP
$1320
per year per user
Standard Cloud
$1,520
per year
Standard Desktop
$3,040
one-time fee
Standard Desktop & Cloud
$3,344
one-time fee
Mathematica Enterprise Edition
$8,150.00
one-time fee
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
JMP
Mathematica
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Bulk discounts available.
Discounts available for students and educational institutions. The Network Edition reduce per-user license costs through shared deployment across any number of machines on a local-area network.
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.
Much better than Excel for deep data dives, but also much steeper learning curve. And the cost is significantly higher - Excel is provided by default, but we have to request a JMP license each year.
It is great because it has UI menus but it costs money whereas the other programs are free. That makes it ideal for beginners but I think that RStudio and Python are going to make someone a lot more marketable for future opportunities since most companies won't pay for the …
JMP Statistical Discovery Software was already being used at my company. Other statistical software tools such as dataConductor have an easier-to-use interface and do not require learning a scripting language to generate large quantities of data plots.
JMP is superior to the MS Excel product in its graphical presentation and graphical exploration platforms. It has minor deficiencies in the lack of a 'goal seek' formula (although one can sort of get to this using the simulation platforms in some of the higher level ML …
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 …
JMP is more user-friendly, in my opinion, as it doesn't require any coding or searching for hours into cryptic folders for the analysis you want to perform. It is also very good for recording large data sets. Moreover, it is compatible with Microsoft Excel.
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.
I have only used STATA as a statistical package, and they are completely different tools. JMP has a much better layout and ease of use, but may not be as powerful as STATA for advanced processes. Overall speed and ease of use makes it like a combination of ms excel and stata …
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.
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose JMP
Minitab, MODE. JMP is more user-friendly, interactive, and visual, with larger variety of analysis and tools. DOE platform itself is superior to any other software, instead of fitting the problem to classical design, the design is fitted to any problem and constraints.
MS Excel is good for manipulating data and providing flexible data arrays, but has serious deficiencies in its graphical displays and analytic capabilities. This is where JMP has its greatest advantages...see some of my previous comments, but I see these software applications …
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose JMP
Compared to: MSExcel - Useful from engineering data analysis perspective Matlab - cost/ expensive licensing
I much prefer the ability to code my programs which is the main method used in both SAS and R. These software choices allow for quicker, more efficient, and more advanced analysis techniques. The one area that JMP is above these is in graphics and visual displays of data. JMP …
Quality and Reliability Engineering Intern, Manufacturing, Intel
Chose JMP
Well, JMP is excellent for statistical analysis. So, this product it is well used for statistical analysis and data analytics.
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose JMP
As I stated before, you can use Excel to do many similar things to JMP; you can even use SAS to create graphs without having to do any sort of exporting. If you use SAS, however, you know these graphs are hideous, and sometimes using an Excel graphs makes you look like you are …
I heard good things from colleagues who have used JMP. We did not get too far down the SPSS route before we decided to go with JMP because of price and perceived benefit from my colleague's advice.
JMP simply excels against its competitors and the best way we know that is from our clients who have switched from other products. They recognize that their analytical capabilities are much higher with JMP then with whatever tools they used in the past. The ability to integrate …
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose JMP
JMP is more powerful in terms of data graphing, correlation analysis, profiler capability, and DOE functionality.
Projektspezialist bei Steffen Jäschke EinzUnt Physik, Berechnungen
Chose Mathematica
There is no other alternative that Maple from Maplesoft all over. There are other systems for mCAx that do not offer the richness and coverage of mathematical features. For example Matlab that restricts inself to matrice calculation and only the the right set of addon library …
Well, Mathematica is free at my university. As a graduate student, you can download and install Mathematica in your device after log in through your university email. Second, it has very nice platform. You can use Mathematica for many data analysis such as plotting, integration …
Matlab is an excellent tool, but it can't handle analytic manipulations in algebra, calculus and differential equations. Matlab is superior when it comes to a less steep learning curve. In terms of using only one tool for analytic and numerical calculations, Mathematica wins. …
Mathematica is good solution in some cases but doesn't perform well in other regions. Mathematica is good in solving mathematical problems but not performs well in machine learning areas. I would suggest to use TensorFlow or Keras for machine learning. Also it performs good for …
The ability to manipulate algebraic expressions, nested lists, and data structures in Mathematica was unequalled when I first did the comparison. Since then, I've stuck with Mathematica mostly because it's "the tool I know."
We have evaluated and are using in some cases the Python language in concert with the Jupyter notebook interface. For UI, we using libraries like React to create visually stunning visualizations of such models.
Mathematica compares favorably to this alternative in terms of …
We selected Wolfram Mathematica as it offers lot of functionality that other products like MATLAB or sageMath do not have. And it also has advantages on the feature that it does share in common with other tools like sageMath, MATLAB etc. It is more powerful than MATLAB. It …
I think IBM Watson analytics is good alternative to Wolfram Mathematica. A few advantages of Mathematica over IBM Analytics is that Mathematica comes with a lot of inbuilt things like neural networks, predictive analysis geometry. And IBM analytics does not show the step by …
Many organizations have seen their analytical capabilities, and the results from them, plateau. Of these, we've observed, that most of them didn't appreciate that they could do (even) better. These companies should definitely consider JMP. Any company that is research-based can benefit from accelerating their research, learning more in less time, effort and cost, with JMP's tools. Basically, any organization that is hungry enough for improvement to seek out better ways is suitable for JMP. Those who are happy with their current performance are not likely to consider the changes, though they were not major impediments by our clients, required.
We are the judgement that Wolfram Mathematica is despite many critics based on the paradigms selected a mark in the fields of the markets for computations of all kind. Wolfram Mathematica is even a choice in fields where other bolide systems reign most of the market. Wolfram Mathematica offers rich flexibility and internally standardizes the right methodologies for his user community. Wolfram Mathematica is not cheap and in need of a hard an long learner journey. That makes it weak in comparison with of-the-shelf-solution packages or even other programming languages. But for systematization of methods Wolfram Mathematica is far in front of almost all the other. Scientist and interested people are able to develop themself further and Wolfram Matheamatica users are a human variant for themself. The reach out for modern mathematics based science is deep and a unique unified framework makes the whole field of mathematics accessable comparable to the brain of Albert Einstein. The paradigms incorporated are the most efficients and consist in assembly on the market. The mathematics is covering and fullfills not just education requirements but the demands and needs of experts.
Mathematica is incompatible with other systems for mCAx and therefore the borders between the systems are hard to overcome. Wolfram Mathematica should be consider one of the more open systems because other code can be imported and run but on the export side it is rathe incompatible by design purposes. A better standard for all that might solve the crisis but there is none in sight. Selection of knowledge of what works will be in the future even more focussed and general system might be one the lossy side. Knowledge of esthetics of what will be in the highest demand in necessary and Wolfram is not a leader in this field of science. Mathematics leves from gathering problems from application fields and less from the glory of itself and the formalization of this.
I've mentioned this earlier, but the licensing agreements are very prohibitive. I work with a company where my role has become less and less doing my own analytics and more and more trying to help other people in that role. As we are bringing more people "up to speed" it's hard to justify licenses for 2-3 people when they aren't full time, Six Sigma black belts just looking at stats all day. A floating license option would make this a no-brainer, since these people could continue their other work and add JMP usage as they grow their skills, but this is not something JMP/SAS has offered.
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.
The helpful tips are great for new users. I am always able to find solutions to a tool I am working with through the hep section. And my area has a users group that meets each quarter to share ideas and view upcoming JMP revisions.
Wolfram Mathematica is a nice software package. It has very nice features and easy to install and use in your machine. Besides this, there is a nice support from Wolfram. They come to the university frequently to give seminars in Mathematica. I think this is the best thing they are doing. That is very helpful for graduate and undergraduate students who are using Mathematica in their research.
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.
The ability to manipulate algebraic expressions, nested lists, and data structures in Mathematica was unequalled when I first did the comparison. Since then, I've stuck with Mathematica mostly because it's "the tool I know."
JMP has resulted in literally millions of dollars in ROI due to identification of correctable errors.
Use of JMP control charts JMP has greatly simplified and improved interpretation of Lean, FMEA, and PDSA type analyses.
Use of JMP has enable the testing and subsequent selection of 'best practices' saving uncounted hours in false starts based on 'collective experience'.
The down side is that JMP is not a 'magic box', one still has to take care in applying the tools properly. Moreover, time-consuming approaches using JMP may still be the 'order of the day', because the service (even power user) is unaware of significant shortcuts available for free on the JMP community website.
Mathematica is our "go to" environment for developing solutions for our clients, so I suppose you could say that it is solely responsible for our revenues. On occasion we do use other platforms but Mathematica is a core component of our offer to clients.