With a solid foundation of data, integrations, financial models, the tool can be as flexible as the company needs. The code is easy to understand and easily built out with the proper talent (either in house or contracted). Users do not need extensive architecture knowledge to stand up models and then connect the pipes together. This allows teams to trial and error fairly quickly to build new use cases. The ability to manage a large portion of the infrastructure within the function and outside of IT is also very appealing. Typically, finance functions rely on IT to perform regular tasks and wait for results - with Anaplan, a lot of those activities can remain with the business. There are a variety of integration tools available as well as native tooling that can support an enterprise. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Without major talent, the models can quickly go awry and be poorly designed. Though the functionality may work, it might be less performant or create complexities when trying to adjust existing logic. Talent is also a large factor when considering this tool as it requires either building a team in house or contracting out. With contractors, you run the risk of knowledge gaps & lack of documentation for proprietary processes. To facilitate the implementation phase, business owners need to actively participate and devote a large number of hours to support the build. This is expensive to manage with larger organizations and could be less likely with smaller organizations. On the support side, you may contract out activities but there is a ramp up time that companies need to factor in (though this is true with most tools). The pricing model is quickly evolving to a subscription based model (again not uncommon amongst most SaaS platforms these days). Customer support is fairly basic and can be escalated, but is cumbersome during critical periods. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.



