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

CA Deliver vs Windward Core comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 2025

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

CA Deliver
Ranking in Reporting
32nd
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Windward Core
Ranking in Reporting
19th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Document Generation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Reporting category, the mindshare of CA Deliver is 1.0%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Windward Core is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Reporting Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Windward Core1.3%
CA Deliver1.0%
Other97.7%
Reporting
 

Featured Reviews

it_user837525 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Systems Engineer (Sr. level II) at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Gives us one repository for various output formats and retention periods
A common theme with all CA products is they state compatibility with new technologies when it has not yet been proven. Much like other technology companies that have fallen into this trap, let feature and compatibly releases be controlled by the technical group, instead of the marketing and/or management people. I cite the example that CA mainframe products were deemed to be compatible with Extended Address Volumes (EAV) - larger sized disk volumes - when they were not. I have been doing this for 37 years and see it all too often, sometimes to the detriment of the company itself (Storage Technology Corp. and its Iceberg array comes to mind).
CH
Sr. Systems Analyst at a tech services company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Strong layout and design capabilities; leverages every aspect available in Word-native formatting
The licensing key is a little bit twitchy. I'd like to see more HTML formatting support in templates. It has a basic stock of HTML formatting capability, but it doesn't have a rich vocabulary. I have to work around that sometimes. The help documentation and blog posts are extensive, but not always up to date. The error reports also need improvement. If you don't key it in right, it's a little hard to find the root cause. It gives you information as much as it can, but it doesn't really hone in and tell you explicitly what you should do to correct the problem.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The benefits are that it keeps their information for over 40 to 50 years, so in essence it's a digital bank for customer information."
"Extremely stable and reliable, and easy to install."
"Having one repository for various output formats and retention periods. Provides the flexibility to establish hundreds of different retention entries, based upon business need, and then group the like retention period outputs together on the same media. It is very efficient."
"Flexibility of report configuration; allows for quick and simple amendments to definitions."
"Our company is using Windward because it works well with Microsoft Office."
"For the designer we use AutoTag which is a Microsoft Word plugin. In general, it's easy to use, it doesn't have a very steep learning curve. It's not difficult, for people who know Microsoft Office well, to start using the AutoTag tool... It feels just like you're in a Microsoft Office environment with some extra functionality."
"The most valuable feature is the Rich Text or TinyMCE in fields. For example, you have a text field but it is not a regular text field, it is a link. Inside this link, you can copy/paste everything: images, text, and tables together. After saving this field, you can pull it into the document."
"It is very user-friendly, and the wizard and equation options, plus the ability to create PODs for reusable data points, save so much time when templates need to be created quickly."
"Overall, I rated as I did because, for its price point, it's very good at delivering what it's designed to deliver: keeping your templates in Word."
"The solution is very flexible, so you can create anything you want. Think of the possibilities you have in Excel or in Word, because these are the two document generators that are used the most. I only use Word, but I can use nearly every feature in Word, including making charts and tables, and produce those features in Windward, parametrically."
"Ease of use and design reporting templates is straightforward with usage of standard MicrosoftWord package."
"We really could not have started our business, quite honestly, without a document generation engine like Windward."
 

Cons

"I work with the developers so I get what I want built into the project."
"Needs ability to allow export to xls/pdf, etc. (Note: this is available in add-on product CA – OM Web Viewer)."
"A common theme with all CA products is they state compatibility with new technologies when it has not yet been proven. I cite the example that CA mainframe products were deemed to be compatible with Extended Address Volumes (EAV) - larger sized disk volumes - when they were not."
"Regarding AutoTag, we do notice that when you want to refactor a little bit of your template design or when you want to implement changes, sometimes you need a lot of clicks to get the change done. For instance... it would be helpful to be able to find all the identifiers with the old name and replace them with the new name. We haven't found a way to do that with the find-replace tool. Throughout the user-interface of Windward, you need a lot of clicks to get that done."
"Autotag can be a little confusing for new users, however doing the training webinars will get them on their feet in no time."
"Windward is very expensive when the volume of documents being generated is low and it is cheap when the volume is high."
"Some drawbacks we have come across are getting the output formatting to match exactly how it is implemented within Word."
"They should add a document distribution solution on top of the document generation capability."
"They should add a document distribution solution on top of the document generation capability. It should allow us to send the generated document to a certain recipient (e.g. customer contact’s email address) based on a business-rules management system. That system would allow the end-user to manage a relationship between a document template and its recipient."
"Requires some work on page numbers (footer) in Word, as it places the page number in the center, when output in PDF page number is more to right than center."
"Was limited by XML path restrictions. There were a couple of times I wanted to do something in the formulas which was prohibited by XML path but okay to do in Excel and the product is sold as being able to do whatever Excel can do in terms of formulas."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"​Pricing is reasonable, licensing model suitable for large enterprises."
"​They are fair and flexible. They are willing to work with your current architecture to make sure you have the best deal.​"
"Pricing is a bit higher than normal desktop applications, but it's well worth it. The ROI is simple to understand and the monthly payment for an annual license is affordable and worth it."
"I'm starting to hear clients squeal about the price of their software. The cost of the software has gone up."
"From my experience in this field, the product is reasonably priced, at least with the RESTful engine implementation. It's definitely not a cheap option. People say, "That's a fair amount of money to pay for a document generation tool." At the same time, you do get good functionality and the support is good."
"It is absolutely worth the value. They have flexibility, depending on what you're looking for from a buying standpoint. The current pricing models are quite flexible, with the ability to use it on an as-needed basis, or to get a perpetual license that covers a customer that might have extensive needs. I think it's pretty good."
"The pricing is fair. The way that they have it priced is the Windward Designer has a price that's associated with it. Then, depending on the number of cores that you're looking for, that is the price that you pay. The more cores that you want, the more expensive it is."
"The cost is reasonable."
"Windward is very expensive when the volume of documents being generated is low and it is cheap when the volume is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Reporting solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Marketing Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise8
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Windward, Windward Studios
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ERGO
HAL, Inc., Axe Group, White Clark Group, Blueprint Software, Aspect Security, Nucleus Software, LeBlanc’s Food Stores, South Sound 911, Aegon, Barclays, Fidelity Investments, ArisGlobal LLC, USDA, RepLink, AON Hewitt
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Deliver vs. Windward Core and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.