Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud Reviews

I have implemented in many industries, including manufacturing, banks, construction, and health businesses. It's an amazing software. We are in a new area where CCH and OneStream are offering different technologies, but it used to be only Oracle before.

Every time you have software consolidating, it helps avoid mistakes from humans. You can control if people can or can't change a number if you want. 

By consolidating data efficiently, you can report your numbers for stakeholders quickly, enabling faster decisions. In the planning scenario, new features like predictive planning offer customization and allow you to use your data to train AI and show good reports.

I like the way Oracle offers a methodology to build applications differently. You can integrate them to show integrated data without using the same architecture. This offers benefits like improved performance and flexibility for planning processes that are not strongly connected to consolidation. 

The customization level is excellent. OneStream offers similar capabilities, but CCH is more difficult to customize. Oracle has matured very well compared to competitors and offers efficient consolidation and planning solutions.

Oracle initially forced HFM users to migrate to FCCS, which was difficult because moving applications wasn't easy. Many clients chose OneStream due to this ease of transition. FCCS should have been more open to customizations initially. Oracle has made improvements, but FCCS should be continually enhanced to match their planning applications.

Between the on-premises and the cloud version, I have used it for around seven to eight years.

Oracle is stable as long as you know what you are doing. Poor setup by someone who doesn't know database properties can lead to subpar performance, however, that is not Oracle's fault.

The scalability of Oracle is impressive and competes well with OneStream. I am not yet sure about CCH, but Oracle is very scalable.

I rate their customer service as eight. Sometimes, the initial experience isn't great, but they ultimately provide good advice and solutions.

Positive

I have experience with Oracle. HFM users moved to OneStream due to similarities in language and ease of moving applications. FCCS required different scripting language transformations.

Oracle's initial setup is user-friendly especially if you have no pre-existing system or process. It allows easy model enablement like financial, workforce, project, and capital, making it an ideal choice.

Normally, the implementation team consists of consultants with specialists in consolidation and planning. FP&A is involved in providing guidelines, along with project managers and success managers from the consulting firm, totalling easily more than ten people.

The software accelerates processes and improves accuracy by organizing data for better reporting. It also offers features like predictive planning.

The cloud version reduces infrastructure costs since no servers or related staff are needed. However, it might feel expensive to small or mid-sized companies due to licensing requirements. Oracle prices are reasonable considering the services provided.

I have experience with Oracle, OneStream, and exploring CCH. Initially, many clients chose OneStream because of similarities with HFM and easier language transitions.

Easily adapted models are beneficial, particularly if workforce resources are widespread. For OneStream, extensive customization can sometimes lead to performance issues if not implemented properly. Oracle’s model flexibility is a major advantage.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I have implemented Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud in many industries, such as manufacturing, banks, construction, and health business. It's an amazing software. In the past, Oracle was the main solution, however, now, OneStream and CCH are offering different technologies.

When you have software like Oracle consolidating, it's not just about speeding up the process but also avoiding mistakes from manual tasks. You can control data access and changes, thereby reporting numbers to stakeholders more efficiently for decision-making. Predictive planning, though not yet implemented by me, seems ready for AI integration, allowing training with your data for better future predictions.

I value Oracle's flexibility and customization levels. It's beneficial to have the ability to integrate applications and keep them separate for performance reasons. Oracle offers a methodology that differs from other competitors, like OneStream and CCH. With solutions like HFM or FCCS, you can easily consolidate subsidiaries, translations, eliminations, and consider ownership, enhancing the software's usefulness.

Oracle made a mistake by forcing HFM users to transition to FCCS before the solution was mature enough. It caused many clients to opt for OneStream due to its similarity with HFM. FCCS initially lacked customization options, which deterred clients. Oracle is improving FCCS, but further enhancements are necessary to match its planning applications.

Between the on-premises and cloud version, I have been using it for around seven to eight years.

Oracle is stable, but knowledge of database properties is crucial to avoid poor application setup. If issues arise, it's not Oracle's fault; it's due to incorrect setup.

Oracle's scalability is impressive, considered among the top competitors. Compared to OneStream, it's trusted for its scalability.

I would rate Oracle customer service as eight out of ten. Occasionally, you encounter inexperienced representatives, but they ultimately provide good advice.

Positive

Oracle is highly recommended for initial setup, especially if you lack an existing system, due to its comprehensive modeling and pre-configured scripts. It's ready to accelerate every project.

Deployment typically involves more than ten people, including consultants, specialists in consolidation and planning, the FP&A team, project managers, and potentially a success factory from the consulting firm.

Having a software solution helps avoid human errors in financial processes, speeds up stakeholder reporting, and enhances decision-making. Predictive planning offers potential benefits through AI integration, although this is not yet fully realized.

While cloud pricing may initially appear more expensive due to the absence of infrastructure expenses, it is fair. There's no need for physical servers or infrastructure management. 

The licensing is reasonably structured, although there's a minimum license requirement, which might be costly for small and medium-sized companies.

The main competitor mentioned is OneStream, which offers a centralized app but lacks performance with complex developments. CCH was also mentioned as an option.

The trade-off between centralized apps like OneStream and the customizable flexibility of Oracle is important. Oracle should be the choice if ease of maintenance and widespread knowledgeability are priorities.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for our company buying different items and for selling them. The items are credible and noncredible retail goods, such as computers.

The most valuable features of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud are the many capabilities it provides.

There is middleware that we need to purchase for our use case that should be provided in Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud. We should not have to purchase the additional solution and the integration should be seamless.

I have been using Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for approximately one year.

The stability of the solution is good.

I rate the stability of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud a nine out of ten.

We have not explored all the options in the solution, only approximately 20 percent. However, we will be using 100 percent of the solution over time.

All the features are able to scale.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 20 people that are using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud a nine out of ten.

I rate the support from Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud a nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup was more complicated than we initially thought. The technicians were there to assist. The full process of implementation took approximately one year.

We had assistance from the vendor for the deployment.

There is an annual subscription for this solution and it is priced high.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud ten out of ten.

I use it for financial planning and budgeting.

The most valuable feature is the data integration in Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud. It makes creating reports much faster, and I find it convenient, especially for managing prepaid options, like getting another prepaid phone from QVC and easily integrating it into the system.

One potential improvement would be a more visual workflow, as the current method using a tax list is not as effective.

I have been using Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for three years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as an eight out of ten. We experience some issues but not very often. It breaks down sometimes but that doesn't last too long.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as a ten out of ten.

The technical support is great. They are very fast and responsive.

The initial setup is not too complex.

Overall, I would rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud as an eight out of ten. I would definitely recommend it to others.

I'm managing the PBCS instance of our Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud.

The most valuable feature of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is ad hoc reporting.

The FR recording studio that is used to build reports is clunky and awful to use. This could be improved a lot. The solution does have problems and limitations.

I have been using Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud for approximately four years.

The stability of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is good. When everything is working, it's working and when it's broken, it's not working. If it's only the solution operating, it's good, but there are all sorts of other things associated with the solution. For example, daylight savings time changes the scripts, what time they run on a server. If that is out of sync, then potentially your data loads can fail.

Things are overwriting each other and things aren't working in the right order. Overall the solution is 85 percent stable.

The scalability of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud is great.

We have 100 plus users using the solution and it handles them well. We're adding new functionality every few months. For example, we added flex forms. We replaced a huge burden on the administrators with flex form functionality.

Oracle response time for customer SRs is horrible. For example, we've had a ticket unresolved for nine months. It takes eight hours to refresh and they have not been in contact with us for nine months. They need to improve their support.

I was not present during the installation of Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud but from what I heard it is complex.

My company paid a lot of consultants a lot of money to do the implementation. You need someone that knows what they are doing, it is complicated.

The solution is free.

My advice to others would be for them to hire consultants, but for day-to-day operations, such as use and maintenance, anyone can be trained on it. Don't assume you need to buy the skillset, I came in knowing nothing about the solution and now I know everything about it. I haven't had any formal administrator training.

I rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud an eight out of ten.

Planning and budgeting is the core part of the tool. It's the body of the tool where information fits into this planning application and filters out to the other pieces, like reporting, consolidation, and other cubes. Planning is the most stable and solid tool available in the market.

We have recently moved this solution to the cloud.

The workforce, the cube database, is the most valuable feature where you do planning for your headcounts. There is a direct connection now with the cloud that you can connect to the Workday system, which is HR. Most of the planning and budgeting is done around headcount. That is now available to you with the live data from HR.

For HR, the workforce planning out of the box is complicated. For most users, it's not easy, and it requires a learning curve. It's not very user-friendly. It can be improved.

I have heard that it's being worked on constantly. There are changes going on with benefits, taxes, additional earnings, and all those. One piece that is missing is the  international taxation piece, which is not available in the tool. Companies like ours use this Bloomberg software. Most companies are international, so you need to have a tax structure, or benefits from the UK, Europe, and Asia built into the system or already available. It's not there yet.

I have been using this solution for 10 years.

This is one of the most stable solutions out there. I also hear this from colleagues and friends.

Tech support has gone down. Initially when it was on-prem, tech support was very sophisticated and knowledgeable. In my IT area, it's a common complaint that with some of the resources that Hyperion and Oracle have, these folks have no knowledge about how the tool works. When there is an issue, complaint, or inquiry, they're not able to help properly, like before.

I used Cognos for a couple years, which was bought by IBM. Cognos didn't gain the recognition that Hyperion has.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

Our planning is on-premise but we are moving towards the cloud.

Beneficial analysis and easy to do management adjustments.

Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud could improve. There are times when the forms are slow in saving and calculating.

I have used Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud within the past 12 months.

I rate Oracle Planning and Budgeting Cloud an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for creating financials.

The product has a direct plugin to Microsoft Excel. The ease of pulling in data and reporting and ease of getting quickly at data at different levels is great.

The solution can scale.

The initial setup isn't too difficult.

The stability and performance are good.

I definitely preferred Hyperion in the way it was organized compared to this product. I understand this solution is more of a budgeting tool, and so they've put their consolidation tool under that. Due to the fact that it's a space cube, for smaller companies like ours, the way that Hyperion was a relational database worked better for reporting.

Some of the things in this product are just too cumbersome and we don't need them and they make it harder to do certain things, or certain things have to have more specific names or descriptions. You have to put in strange characters that make it look not as sleek.

It would be nice if we had an option when using the ad hoc querying to see a member name and the description. In this solution, you can't pull both, you can only pull one or the other, and sometimes that's confusing. If you want an account, you might want to see the account number and the account name. That's super helpful to those of us in accounting and reporting, however, that's not currently an option. You can only pick one or the other right now. If they could somehow add that, that would be fantastic.

I've used the solution for about two years.

The stability has been great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is good.

The product is scalable.

In some ways, HFM could handle more members within a dimension as it didn't need to copy or consolidate at every intersection point. Only the ones with values. This product, the way it's a cube, limits you and maybe how many members you can have within a dimension. However, in other ways, it's probably more scalable to do more. It just depends on what your purpose is.

I do not directly deal with technical support. I'm not in IT, so I don't directly deal with any of the tech support. Somebody more on the IT side would go through that.

We used to use Oracle Hyperion. I used it for so much longer, and therefore feel that Hyperion is easier to use. It's more intuitive, a little more streamlined. That's specifically reporting. If somebody was using it for planning, it probably was not as strong in that arena.

The initial setup is more complicated than HFM (Hyperion) was. That said, it was fine.

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect. I don't know how much it costs.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

The solution, being a cloud deployment, is always on the latest version.

The best advice would be to sit down and really talk about what the end goal is of what you want it to look like. Sometimes in sales meetings, you're told it can do certain things, and it can in fact do those things, however, not in the way you're envisioning it doing. Therefore, just have a clear picture of how long they're going to take or what that's really going to entail. When you're implementing it, you might need to actually consider a few different approaches than maybe the way you need it to look. It'll do it, just not the way you want it to.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.