Skip to main content
TrustRadius
Oracle CPQ

Oracle CPQ

Overview

What is Oracle CPQ?

Oracle CPQ is a cloud-based application that helps sellers configure the right mix of products or services and create accurate, professional quotes to quickly meet their customers’ pricing needs.

Read more
Recent Reviews

Oracle CPQ Review

8 out of 10
March 21, 2019
Incentivized
It's used by a Business segment. It manages the Pricing and Quoting solution. We create and renew quotes, agreements, renew those, revise …
Continue reading

Review

4 out of 10
March 20, 2019
Incentivized
Oracle CPQ is currently being used by the three largest sales groups. It allows the sales team to manage pricing within the constraints …
Continue reading
Read all reviews

Awards

Products that are considered exceptional by their customers based on a variety of criteria win TrustRadius awards. Learn more about the types of TrustRadius awards to make the best purchase decision. More about TrustRadius Awards

Popular Features

View all 11 features
  • Quote sharing/sending (16)
    8.4
    84%
  • Configuration options (16)
    7.9
    79%
  • Product configuration (16)
    7.9
    79%
  • Price adjustment (16)
    7.3
    73%
Return to navigation

Pricing

View all pricing

CPQ Pricing

$240.00

Cloud
per month per user

Entry-level set up fee?

  • No setup fee

Offerings

  • Free Trial
  • Free/Freemium Version
  • Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Return to navigation

Product Demos

CPQsuite Demo (7.5 minutes)

YouTube

Oracle CPQ Training | Oracle CPQ Certification Course Demo | What is Oracle CPQ | MindMajix

YouTube

Oracle CPQ Cloud Service 2017 1Z0-976 questions and answers|CertTree

YouTube

1Z0-436 exam Oracle CPQ Cloud Service 2016 Implementation Specialist | 1Z0-436 PDF Answers

YouTube
Return to navigation

Features

CPQ

Features related to configuring and pricing products and delivering quotes to customers.

7.4
Avg 8.6
Return to navigation

Product Details

What is Oracle CPQ?

Oracle CPQ is a cloud-based application that helps sellers configure the right mix of products or services and create accurate, professional quotes to quickly meet their customers’ pricing needs.

Oracle CPQ Technical Details

Deployment TypesSoftware as a Service (SaaS), Cloud, or Web-Based
Operating SystemsUnspecified
Mobile ApplicationNo

Frequently Asked Questions

Oracle CPQ is a cloud-based application that helps sellers configure the right mix of products or services and create accurate, professional quotes to quickly meet their customers’ pricing needs.

Conga CPQ, SAP CPQ, and PROS Smart CPQ are common alternatives for Oracle CPQ.

Reviewers rate Quote sharing/sending highest, with a score of 8.4.

The most common users of Oracle CPQ are from Enterprises (1,001+ employees).
Return to navigation

Comparisons

View all alternatives
Return to navigation

Reviews and Ratings

(54)

Attribute Ratings

Reviews

(1-5 of 5)
Companies can't remove reviews or game the system. Here's why
Score 5 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Incentivized
Oracle CPQ is connected with Salesforce in our company. It's used by many of our major business groups to create quotes. Sales reps use it to configure quotes for potential orders.
  • Discount approval process
  • Price list
  • SFDC integration
  • Oracle support
  • Product stability
  • Scalability
The product comes with many limitations if tried to customize beyond a certain point. It's advertised as a transactional system so it doesn't support major loads. However, the product has robust out of the box features to support the sale process including discount approvals and also integration to SFDC via managed packages.
CPQ
N/A
N/A
  • Streamlined sales process due to integration with SFDC.
  • Single reporting source.
The company had already invested in the tool, so to make enterprise standard, Oracle CPQ was chosen.
Support is not really good from Oracle. Sometimes the product goes down or a restart is required on Oracle's end.
The UI is pretty straight fwd and easy to use.
Score 1 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
  • It handled heavy calculations very well, i.e. fast.
  • It is possible to add any business logic to the system.
  • Support and documentation are very poor. The support is bordering on unprofessional. The documentation on how to configure the system is minimal, and Googling information, returns no hits. So the cost of maintenance is high.
  • It is very hard to maintain your implementation, and deployment of changes is non-trivial. So the cost of maintenance is high.
  • The document engine (the rich text editor part) is so poor we turned back to the xsl markup language to deploy changes faster and have more control. The engine automagically removed variables. So the cost of maintenance is high.
  • The user interface make it very hard and time consuming for users to produce quotes.
I was using BigMachines with Salesforce and I would strongly suggest skipping CPQ and customizing Salesforce instead. If that is not sufficient, if your product catalog is large and you add a large amount of different products per opportunity, I would suggest scanning the market for other options.
  • Decreased the business value the IT department can deliver to salespeople and administrators using the company's sales software.
  • It made it possible to create quotes with a quite complex price model.
It is hard to make a easy to use interface for end users (who complained on usability and performance such as slow page loading). As an admin it is very hard to find all the business logic. As a developer it is very cumbersome to deploy and extremly hard to debug. The document engine which should provide a easy to use interface for creating quotes as pdf in our case, was totally unreliable and you had to use "special ways" to edit, we went back to xsl which was easier and faster.
Some specific support personal was good and fixed some problems fast using proper solutions. But when one of them went to sleep when we had critical issues and they do unreported commits to our production environment which caused issues and they were hiding it?? you can not give more than a two (maybe even that is too much). They also failed to add a feature for us which also bring the grade down.
I was not in the power to make the decision to renew or not, but there were discussions around trying to replace it.
Yes
To get help from people who know BigMachines because there is not many out there available to us. For many things we are forced to use BigMachines because it is not possible to do it yourself such as adding features, which not even BigMachines manage to do. The debugging is also hard to do yourself and BigMachines have better tools to debug our implementation.
Yes
Some of the bugs yes, some of them no. Some fixes caused regression and one time they commited to our production environment, caused regression but did not inform us but tried to fix it while keeping us in the dark.
One of their guys fixed a couple of issues for us, fast, with quality and explained them to us. Very impressive.
  • Validation rules
  • Adding users
  • Layout changes
  • Deploying
  • Debugging
  • Finding all business logic
Score 6 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
  • I don’t see any other alternatives, that are based on Salesforce.com and that would support our complexity - complex order outputs, sophisticated configuration engine for complex business rules
  • Sarbox compliance - our business rules are very complex and Sarbox makes it much more complicated as you need to track everything.
  • It is configurable – just requires time from a system analyst
  • I know it can work, but it takes a lot of time, effort and money
  • We used to use their virtual administrator service, but experienced a lot of turnover and varying skill levels. We felt we were better off having someone in-house. It does however help to have expertise available from Big Machines. The VA service provides technical depth on their end.
  • They have suffered from a lot of growth – both in turnover and burnout of people
In hindsight, it would have been better to re-engineer/simplify our business processes and pricing structure as a precursor to buying software. We were surprised by the hidden cost of ownership – due to staff time. You can turn configurator into client or partner view, though we don’t use those attributes.
  • Rep self-service (without - for simple orders, they are now done independently by This means that reps can close deals faster.
  • Streamlined Sarbox compliance - we now have a system to capture approvals in an automated, secure way and sales reps don’t need to worry about whether an approval needs to be The system tells them and it emails the approver This means we avoid audit failures.
  • Some cost savings in human data entry time, to synchronize successful orders from Big Machines into Salesforce.Each one of those entries could have taken 45 A ball park saving is at least 0.5 FTE.
Apttus, Evapt and some other Salesforce.com add-ons. We felt other solutions could not handle complex order outputs. They had simplistic printer friendlies – could not do split splinter friendlies. Their configuration engines lacked the ability to support complex business rules for configuration, pricing and discounting. We also attended their customer summit, and quizzed customers at their summit. We saw people (companies) with way more complex implementations than ours would be which gave us a level of comfort. We asked for a reference from Salesforce.com and confirmed that BigMachines were able to handle the most complex situations. Managing complexity was an important attribute to us.
While they have a decent administrator interface (relative to other apps), the part that is unintuitive is the printer friendly output. I view this is as the meat and potatoes. They are very constrained on these abilities. To make a font change is really cumbersome. There is no content management protocol to protocol. This kills us.
They are very responsive, though I don’t always like the answer.
100
Sales, services, legal/business operations, finance
0.5
We have one Business Analyst assigned, and it's part of their role. We are however woefully understaffed. It's not enough. We need to re-think the architecture and the simplicity of user interface for sales reps. It is configurable. It just requires time from a system analyst. We need to dedicate more resources to the maintenance of the offering. • You need a part or full time person dedicated to changing. • If Big Machines offered a service for this, would you subscribe for it? - We would, but they’d need to be familiar with our business rules - We used to use their virtual administrator service, but experienced a lot of turnover, varying skill levels. We felt we were better off having someone in-house - It does however help to have expertise available from Big Machines. The VA service provides technical depth on their end.
  • Proposal and order form creation
  • Manage product catalog and pricing
  • The primary reason we bought the application was supporting the two key processes above, but the application got hijacked for SARBOX purposes and promotions that we were not prepared for.
  • We haven’t implemented it correctly yet but don’t believe the software is the barrier.
We need to re-architect and need more guidance/consulting on business processes. Big Machines say they have such an offering. I don’t know if there are viable alternatives and I have not looked recently. feel alternatives would likely be highly custom and require more maintenance
We did not have a package to support this business process. We were trying to use native functionality in Salesforce.com
  • Vendor implemented
  • Implemented in-house
I was not very satisfied. I left the implementation up to our IT team and Big Machines – both in initial implementation and re-architecture for new product. I was very unhappy with how they approached it. The big problem they have is back-end testing to make sure all order types work, however only have a handle on the most simple order types. It is not modular enough to implement changes. It needs further re-architecture. In hindsight, I would lobby for a bigger implementation budget.
  • In-person training
They have pretty good training. Our business analysts have been able to go to entry and advanced level training. They have a train the trainer model. Our business analyst attended training, then trained the rest of our staff.
No
  • Salesforce.com
  • Echosign
Native integration with Salesforce.com. It works pretty well. With all the system updates we are doing to Salesforce.com, we are seeing some syncing issues. We are struggling to keep up. The Echosign integration was pretty easy via APIs. Our Business Analyst did it herself.
We put in SLAs around down time and downtime at EOQ. We negotiated for this especially.
Score 7 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
  • For flexibility and a complex offer/contract, I would absolutely recommend the tool with the caveat that this needs to have dedicated admin with a more technical leaning depending upon the volume of changes needed in pricing, contract or For complex offers/contracts, I would give it an 8 or 9
  • In the last year BMI has made major improvements in usability and the roadmap continues to reflect their commitment to If it continues as is, by early 2013, I would give 8 or 9 regardless of configuration or offer type, again due to the flexibility and with new improvements, much easier to use.
  • It supports all processes we bought it for plus some we don’t use with the exception of publishing a price list.
  • For simpler offers, I would give it a 6 or 7 only due to it being designed by an engineer with no usability training whatsoever.
  • There were no quantifiable metrics defined other than 80% of orders going through system and over 90% are however there is still a higher touch from Legal than where we should be.
  • However, with the complexity explosion we have had in the last 2 or so years, there are some deal types with such complex invoicing, that these orders cannot be done without BMI, even for Legal team.
For users, I would give it a 7 for usability but to be fair some of the usage challenges we've had is because of our decisions, not the tool itself.
It is outstanding. This includes both support and administration services (i.e. a BMI engineer time to supplement administration work). This does not include professional services. I have consistently gotten good service from both support and admin services that typically goes above and beyond and issues resolved quickly.
100
We have 100 licensed users out of about 350 total employees. Other employees have no need for tool. On average, for the licensed users, we are at about a 75% usage rate, including sales reps, services, and approvers. Some of that is due to approvers not logging in a while.
1
Until recently, it was just me and I have other responsibilities as well. We now have both increased admin services as well as hired someone for both BMI and Salesforce admin work. The workload was more than expected. I was hoping that the tool would support being handed off to lower level support or business operations team person. It is closer, but even now there is no way to hand-off to non-IT resources per our current policy. For admin, it is all or nothing. However, some can now be handed off to lower level support.
  • Pricing, both tiered and single level
  • Product/service configuration
  • Commerce calculations such as subtotals, invoicing and discounting
  • Workflow approvals that have proved invaluable for our Sarbanes-Oxley audits
If up to me, 9; others in business, probably 7 or 8
No package per se; just using Excel for pricing and Word templates for contracts.
  • Vendor implemented
  • Professional services company
We had a BMI consulting partner assist with some later rollouts - EDL Consulting - whom I would not recommend in any shape or form. They only have one good engineer and if you don’t use him, the work is marginal at best, took longer than it should have and a much higher level of project management needed.
The approach was fine however we got a brand new Engagement Manager (Project Manager), a new engineer and I was new and still learning all the processes and the tool. Someone needed experience and that hurt us in the long run. There are not many partners to assist in implementation – maybe 2 or 3
  • In-person training
Training is 8 for some areas and 9 for others however they have added new modules recently addressing these deficiencies. Very comprehensive overall but needs deeper dive in others, such as document engine (where all outputs are generated).
No
Other than one day two years ago and an hour or two a few times since then due to data center outages, it has been very reliable.
It depends upon the day however there are so many failure points with online services, including our internet service, that this is probably closer to 9 with the latest version.
  • Salesforce.com
It was pretty straightforward
Yearly payments, payment for professional services after services performed, 48 months with 12 month auto renewal.
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
  • Ability to incorporate business logic within the configurator, i.e. if you buy “x” product, must also include “y” product
  • Ability to trigger approvals based on business rules i.e. sales manager approval needed if discount exceeds 20%.
  • Ability to trigger approvals based revenue recognition rules i.e. finance approval needed if one module discounted more than the others, finance approval needed in previous contract within 6 months, etc.
  • Allowed us to have line-item pricing history.
  • The feature that distinguishes BigMachines from its competition is also the feature that needs the most improvement- DocEngine. DocEngine is the tool that creates RTF or PDF documents based on the results of configuration and discounting/approvals. Most competitors do not have an output option, only configuration. It is supposed to be dynamic, but is very unstable and the output can break. We still have to run contracts through legal to ensure that the system has not caused any errors. Part of the issue is stability, and part is administration UI.
  • Earlier versions required system administrators to understand a code called “BQL”. It was a system designed by engineers with little thought about non-technical system administrators. The latest releases of the product show much more investment and improvement in this area as they move towards clicks not code configuration.
  • Custom pricing/invoicing is difficult, mostly because it’s hard to build logic around “custom” in the system.
BMI may be the “Cadillac” of CPQ systems. Make sure your org will get ROI. BMI can also integrate with other CRM systems such as Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, etc. Consider having at least 3 environments. Production, Development, Testing/QA Don’t underestimate the end-user support needed. And QA required.
  • Better audit trail for maintaining Estimated Selling Price.
  • Line item visibility on pricing/discounts.
  • Faster time to create order and contract.
Our shortlist beyond Big Machines was: 1) Apptus – Their biggest downfall was their lack of responsiveness in the sales cycle. It made us very nervous about their ability to be responsive post sale. 2) Using the Salesforce.com Opportunity Products feature. Salesforce.com native functionality falls short in the following areas: a) Its ability to handle complex pricing bundles; b) no logic for workflow/approvals, e.g. defining which SKUs must go together; c )invoice structure; output to contract/proposal does not exist i.e. creation of Word or PDF file. We picked BigMachines because of its ability to handle: a) Integration with Salesforce.com b) Product Configuration c) Complex invoice structured d) Bundled offers e) Custom SOWs e) Ability to use “Guided Selling” f) Ability to generate document outputs (vs on screen pricing) g)Ability to customize workflow/approvals h) Mobile Approvals i) Reporting j) Future international capabilities k) Potential for partners/resellers to use system l) Potential to replace Sant/Qvidian m) Company viability
75
Approximately 75 users, some of them for “Approvals” only • Sales – Account Executives and Account Managers • Sales Management • Services Management • Finance • Legal
2
1.5 Business Analysts in IT department to administer tool. (which is not enough) 2-3 End user support staff (part time responsibility)
  • Product configuration
  • Quoting
  • Contracts
We did not have any Price Quote or contract tools (also known as CPQ: Configure-Price-Quote) other than spreadsheets. We did and continue to use Sant/Qvidian for proposal content, but this did not include any pricing or logic around offers.
  • Vendor implemented
  • Professional services company
BMI did the initial implementation. We then used the Chicago based consultant EDL Consulting for future phases.
It was a much more technical implementation than we thought. It involved much more code. Future releases have made and will make administering the tool easier. EDL consulting had one good developer, but when he was moved off, they were horrible to work with. The BMI sales team does a “BOA” or a “Business Operation Assessment” which is extremely valuable, not only for them to scope an implementation and get more reach within the organization, but it is also a documentation of business process that most organizations don’t have. It highlights inefficiencies and allows for correction during implementation. Having a dedicated team (in-house) for implementation is key.
  • In-person training
We had train the trainer training which I did not attend so cannot rate. Our staff was trained by BMI and subsequently trained end users.
I have never contacted customer support.
No
Administrator support is available for a fee (hands-on administration in the tool)
As an end-user, I don’t recall having issue with access.
Errors occur while processing orders seem to be generally administration or data errors vs. performance errors.
  • Salesforce.com
  • Echosign
Salesforce.com - Single Sign On. It works very seamlessly. Echosign - partial integration. It is possible to set-up signature fields in Big Machines output files to be EchoSign ready.
Negotiated an “out” based on proof of concept. Once implementation was complete we had the right to end contract if tool didn’t meet needs.
Return to navigation