Business developers in 2018 have a series of options at their disposal when it comes to planning and forecasting forward with their data.

Especially for domestic operations in Australia where the competition is high among multiple industry sectors, the ability to earn the edge with a marginal gain can ensure that the company is heading in the right direction.

What will usually be presented to these analysts attempting to score that all important edge are two distinct software packages.

One emanates from the traditional powerhouse of IBM via TM1, with the other circulating from Anaplan – an organisation who has built consumer confidence by combining analytics and planning as core strategies to their business model.

This ongoing conflict between the TM1 VS Anaplan systems is a matter of debate among specialists who advocate for the merits of both systems.

Here we will examine both brands in the context of the 2018 commercial landscape.

Judging on Speed

Performance speed might be a significant contributor to viewing the TM1 vs. Anaplan battle in context. Should this be the scenario, then the younger Anaplan version will satisfy customers with its cloud-based model that updates information immediately to the central hub. Its IBM counterpart embraces an automated approach where intervention is necessary for real time results with TM1, a feature that could see customers switch if this is a prevalent concern.


Functionality Requirements

Functionality is a major factor that will play a role in determining the purchase of either model. To accurately judge the TM1 vs. Anaplan comparison on this benchmark, it is worthwhile outlining their performance. For the IBM system, the central dashboard and input tables are separate entities where a unique script language is utilised. The development of the Performance Modeler in this instance requires a greater degree of maturity.

For a more friendly user experience, Anaplan appears to win out. The interface model is easy to pick up for younger developers and whilst this can limit its functions for complicated data models, more businesses are satisfied with the Anaplan approach for functionality.


Upgrading Potential/New Tech Features

It would be one thing to judge the TM1 vs. Anaplan comparison earlier in the decade when business analytics was a more standardised process, but in 2018 there are greater demands on these programmers to find new ways of interpreting information. Anaplan’s cloud-based format provides real time numbers where users can access the software from a series of different outlets online.




There is also the capacity to push reports to data storage warehouses, overlapping the new technology with the established operating systems. When it comes to TM1, users have reported bugs within the formatting to illustrate that the introduction of new features is not as simple during an upgraded transition.


Overall Cost

There is no single victor when it comes to judging the TM1 vs. Anaplan battle purely on cost. Although more consumers have required less upgrading and found a limitation on cost long-term with the IBM system, these are two assets that still necessitate an investment in a user license.

What will ultimately determine the winner for cost between these brands is the amount of data that must be used, the amount of user access, the frequency of use and the intricacy of the data situated on the centralised hub. Unfortunately context plays a role here, so there is no standout performer for consumer cost between each product.


Final Conclusion

The merits of the TM1 vs. Anaplan comparison comes down to the user requirements of the business. Those operations who want an intricate and detailed approach are better off investing in the IBM program where additional features can be integrated. Yet if it is a matter of speed and usability in the 2018 climate, then Anaplan will emerge victorious.

What any entity should do in this case is provide an analysis of the internal procedures day to day, and make a judgment moving forward. Each program excels at future forecasting and offering a comprehensive budgeting and planning framework, so these decisions will be marginal.