What's missing in Gartners latest BI MQ?

01/02/2010 08:48

I haven't seen the full text yet but did get hold of the MQ image from this Oracle blog that also contains some interesting observations and snippets from the full text. What you don't see however in this blog is the movement and reshuffling that took place between the 2009 and 2010 editions of the BI MQ, so here they are for comparison: (copyright Gartner Group)


So IBM and Oracle switched positions, Microsoft is moving into the BI Gorrilla space and SAP is suddenly more of a visionary than SAS (they are?). Actually, this is one of the first MQ's where SAS is not on the far right of the quadrant but loses this position to IBM. Must have been caused by the SPSS acquisition, but buying another tool doesn't mean it's automagically integrated.... Other intersting movements are made by QlikTech and especially Spotfire who both migrate from the Visionaries to the Challengers. And there are a couple of new entrants too: both Targit (Danish BI vendor) and Tableau made it to the MQ, the latter even right into the Challenger quadrant which is rare (most vendors start in the Niche quadrant). What's also interesting is the fact that all three challengers offer a somewhat similar class of highly interactive, visual analysis tools.

However, the most interesting (and for some: annoying) observation about the 2010 BI MQ is that none of the Open Source BI vendors were included! Probably again because they failed to meet the revenue criterium, which undoubtedly will cause much discussion about the inclusion criteria (again). Revenues aside, the biggest BI survey (the one by Nigel Pendse) looks at real adoption and usage and only sees a handful of responses mentioning SpagoBI, Palo, Pentaho or Jaspersoft. Maybe the adoption of these tools isn't so widespread as the OS BI vendors want us to believe?

Topic: What's missing in Gartners latest BI MQ?

Full BI MQ text

Jos van Dongen 09/04/2010

Open Source BI

Gilles 01/02/2010
Gartners comment on pentaho and jaspersoft:
Beyond the emerging vendors, Gartner gave serious consideration, as it did last year, to including open-source BI suppliers in the Magic Quadrant. While this year, both major open-source BI platform suppliers generated enough revenue to be included in the Magic Quadrant, they did not garner enough customer survey responses. Although they did not meet the references requirement, Jaspersoft and Pentaho have emerged as viable players in the BI platform market. Both open-source vendors provide comprehensive BI platform capabilities that are comparable in many functional areas with those of traditional BI platform vendors. A key part of both vendors' strategy is to forge OEM relationships with commercial independent software vendors (ISVs) looking to easily embed BI functionality at a low price point. Jaspersoft and Pentaho enable ISVs to embed their open-source BI components without being bound by the GNU General Public License terms and conditions. Given their subscription-based model, both vendors need to provide exceptional support. This was reflected in the Magic Quadrant customer survey, as both Jaspersoft and Pentaho scored strongly on the customer support question — higher than any of the megavendors for the second year in a row.

Re: Open Source BI

Jos van Dongen 02/02/2010
Thanks Gilles for sharing this, very useful addition!

Open source BI

Ed Daniel 01/02/2010
Well, it tells me that there's a great opportunity for anyone working at Gartner, Forrester et al to leave and start a new company offering similar services that specialises in open source software, a company that adheres to the ethics of transparent, open systems such as the open source community. On the benchmarking front it's been great watching players like Phoronix carve out a niche for themselves.

No visionaries ...

Raymond 01/02/2010
What is also striking is that there are no more visionaries in the 2010 MQ. What does that mean : that BI is (finally) maturing?

Re: No visionaries ...

Jos van Dongen 01/02/2010
Thanks; good point, missed that one! It could also mean that the inclusion criteria (e.g. revenue & customer base) are set at such a level that new innovative players simply can't make it to the MQ.

New comment