No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Board vs SAS Activity-Based Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Board
Ranking in Business Performance Management
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (22nd), Reporting (17th)
SAS Activity-Based Management
Ranking in Business Performance Management
19th
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Business Performance Management category, the mindshare of Board is 4.5%, down from 6.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Activity-Based Management is 2.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Performance Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Board4.5%
SAS Activity-Based Management2.5%
Other93.0%
Business Performance Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2645016 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, Software Delivery at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Offers flexibility in design and saves time in budgeting and forecasting processes
I find Board to be simple and easy to use. It offers significant flexibility in designing solutions. The system overall is very useful, with many capabilities that provide flexibility. Our budgeting and forecasting processes support around three hundred twenty users who would otherwise rely on Excel, making Board invaluable for saving time.
it_user530763 - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at a financial services firm with 1-10 employees
Helps to compare production costs across different departments. Try CostPerform from QPR.
Helps to compare production costs across different departments The data integration is very complex Visualization of the cost flow is not user-friendly It takes hours to build OLAP cubes to analyze the results of the model We have been using this solution for three years. I would rate the…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"What is very valuable is the ability to customize. We didn't see a solution out there that really matched exactly what our functional requirements would be. So we were able to work with New Brain, our integrator, and we were able to build from the ground up what we wanted, and I think that's pretty unique to BOARD."
"This product has saved us countless hours in developing our budget each year."
"The ease of being able to get the data into BOARD is what makes it nice for people with a semi-IT background."
"It is very easy to use. It has got what they call a toolkit, which is a no-code development environment. You can develop a whole solution with it because it is a complete platform. There is a lot of online material that can be used as a reference. You can help yourself while developing a solution. There are some prebuilt applications in the platform environment. You can very easily customize and integrate these applications. It also has flexible scaling of machine resources, which is really great."
"This platform has helped our organization streamline our budget process and give us insight into our customers, products and services."
"All staff can now see their relevant scorecards online."
"One of the reasons we chose Board is because the performance to cost ratio is high."
"BOARD continues to grow and develop, and understands the needs of dynamic organizations, and seems to adopt their product to that."
"Helps to compare production costs across different departments."
"We use ABM as an expense allocation model and it has improved the awareness and accountability of the cost incurred due to the traceability feature."
"The product helped determine the organization's true cost of providing its products and services to customers."
"Cube generation is a valuable feature."
"The product allows us to calculate the distributed cost across activities."
 

Cons

"Initially we did have issues with the BOARD crashing, but at that time I was fairly new."
"The engine of the Board should be made powerful like the engine of IBM planning which is more powerful in terms of performance. The consolidated finance area also needs improvement."
"In terms of scalability, I would say that there are some limitations in the solution. It cannot handle data that is too big."
"Building similar models entirely from scratch could be made quicker with transfer abilities between databases and capsules."
"Sometimes, the data disappears from the product."
"The issues that we have with Board are small."
"The one thing that I think we would like to see in terms of improvement of the application is the ability to print. It's fantastic to have all of these graphic visualization of data, but we're not able to very easily just print... From my perspective, if you can have a little "print" button and then you just click it and it would produce what's on the screen, that would be very helpful."
"I'd like to see a more passive report user for enterprise report writers who aren't particularly technical, so you could really get it out there to literally every employee, or every customer."
"The data integration is very complex Visualization of the cost flow is not user-friendly It takes hours to build OLAP cubes to analyze the results of the model"
"The interface is poorly designed and could really use an improvement to compete with other comparable software."
"We experienced severe performance issues when the models created are getting more details and becoming more complex."
"The usability needs to be improved but bear in mind that we did not have the latest update."
"It could be made much more simpler. Most of the time it looks like a black box for developers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is not the cheapest product on earth, but you get so much. It provides good value for money."
"​In terms of the pricing, it was reasonable. BOARD is not the lowest in the market, but it was reasonable for us."
"The tool's price is a bit high compared to other solutions."
"The solution is quite expensive, if it is made cheaper then we can have more clients. I rate it four out of ten."
"Find a partner who will take responsibility for the implementation, and be available for support."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Performance Management solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise8
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Is Board better than Anaplan as a Business Intelligence (BI) solution?
We've had several FP&A departments include Anaplan in their analytics discussions, and while BI information IS generated, the focus is generally on compiling input from various sources and simu...
What needs improvement with Board?
Board's integration could be a bit more robust, but what we have works. If the design isn't right, the flexibility of Board can negatively impact performance.
What is your primary use case for Board?
Our organization primarily uses Board ( /products/board-reviews ) for budgeting and forecasting.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coca-Cola, Puma, Desigual, Ricoh, KPMG, H&M, Groupe SEB
Bank of Queensland, Barclays Bank, BioMar, Danske Bank, Danske Spil, DPPS, First Allied
Find out what your peers are saying about Board vs. SAS Activity-Based Management and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.