Crm Comparison 2009

3,528 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,528
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
43
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
314
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Crm Comparison 2009

  1. 1. Prepared By: aiveo Date: February 2009 All Rights Reserved ©
  2. 2. New Paradigm – SaaS, Cloud & Open As the enterprise CRM market grows, many companies and small groups of developers are focusing on creating CRM software that is distributed freely on the Internet or offered at a fraction of the price of classic enterprise CRM software. However, many vendors charge for support. The software typically offers similar features to popular enterprise software packages. Some of the more popular include: CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  3. 3. New Paradigm – SaaS, Cloud & Open The following table lists the top CRM software vendors in 2006-2007 (figures in millions of US dollars) published in a Gartner study. 2007 2006 2007 Revenues - Big Players 2007 2006 '06-'07 Vendor Share Share Revenue Revenue Growth (%) (%) (%) SAP 2,050.8 25.3 1,681.7 26.6 22.0 Oracle 1,319.8 15.3 1,016.8 15.5 29.8 SAP Oracle Salesforce.com 676.5 8.3 451.7 6.9 49.8 Salesforce.com Amdocs 421.0 5.2 365.9 5.6 15.1 Amdocs Microsoft Microsoft 332.1 4.1 176.1 2.7 88.6 Others Others 3,289.1 40.6 2,881.6 43.7 14.1 Total 8,089.3 100 6,573.8 100 23.1 CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  4. 4. CRM – Know when it’s right For small to medium companies, a good CRM application must include the following characteristics: User Friendly – User adoption Seamless Integration with ERP/Other systems – Out of the box The best Return On Investment (ROI) - Immediate payback with increased productivity, lower sales costs, and streamlined sales operations—all leading to increased revenue. CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  5. 5. Criteria for evaluation Before proceeding any further, we recommend preparing a list of your most important criteria for CRM evaluation, and then weighting each factor by your level of importance, for example: EVALUATION/SC Weight CRM Vendor I CRM Vendor II OREBOARD Cost: 25% $45 $25 License/User Cost: 25% $5000 $12,500 Implementation 3rd Party Integration: 30% Out of the box QuickBooks™, Gmail, Outlook™ ROI: 20% 4% 6.5% Increase Sales – / Annually … CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  6. 6. You’re Ready! Without further interruption , we present the CRM Benchmarking for 2009 Downloadable Spreadsheet Analysis COSTS Over 250 Over 25 Benchmarking Vendors Criteria INDUSTRY LEADERS Online Comparison Tool FEATURES COMPARISON CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  7. 7. Annual Average $ Cost* / Per User * Avg. cost calculation: 1.taken from real customers of these vendors 2.Calculated using license fee, start up fees and customization and support fees CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  8. 8. Average fees - year one $8,000 $7,362 $6,900 $7,000 $6,000 $4,850 $5,000 $4,074 $3,880 $4,000 $2,829 $3,000 $2,000 $1,495 $1,091 $1,000 $145 $0 Oprius Sales AppShore StreetSmart Epicor CRM Sugar 5.0 Pro ACT! by Sage SalesNOW Infusionsoft Sage CRM / Contact Premium Small Business 8.5 Premium SageCRM.com Manager Edition CRM V2 2009 (11.0) application CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  9. 9. Out of the box solution - Leaders Solution Name Commence CRM 100% Epicor CRM 7.3.6 100% Maximizer CRM 10 100% SAP CRM 100% Aplicor CRM 89% Epicor CRM 8.5 89% GoldMine Premium Edition (GMPE) 89% Sage CRM / SageCRM.com 89% Sage SalesLogix 89% Salesforce CRM 89% Sugar 5.0 Pro 89% eSalesTrack 78% CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©
  10. 10. Get the complete analysis • Free spreadsheet • Personalized analysis • Free consultation Fill in your details to get the full analysis CRM Comparison @ by aiveo | February 2009 | All Rights Reserved ©

×