Birst contains several sub-systems with similar, but signifcantly incompatible, syntax and functionalities. This leads to confusion and difficulty.
Birst provides insufficient control over how charts are rendered and how dashboard prompts are displayed and used. This has lead to significant dissatisfaction on the part of those for whom I've developed dashboards.
Significant parts of Birst resemble a relational database, but cannot be made to function like one. This results in jumping through complicated hoops to construct the fact tables for a multiple-relation data system.
Ability to meet corporate data standards such as scale and security
Ability to do ad-hoc analysis and scheduled reports
Increased adoption, usage and self-service
Birst is not fast. It takes a long time to process our complicated data system, and it often takes a days to develop our complex reports, usually for reasons that are not readily apparent. This probably says more about our use of Birst than the product in general, but the facts remain. Despite this, I have managed to deliver a wide variety of reports to meet the needs of my colleagues.
Birst's ETL is better suited to our purposes than Alooma's stream-based processing. Birst's designer is more mature and meets or needs better than Periscope's reporting functionality, at the time I investigated it.
Birst is excellent for simple reports backed by a straightforward data structure. It is less helpful for complex reports with highly permutative prompts, based on a complicated data structure with poor data hygiene.