Skip to main content

Introduction

Global organizations have relied on SAP BPC (SAP Business Planning and Consolidation) for their financial consolidation and planning needs. Unfortunately, the end-of-support for SAP BPC has been updated and set for 2030. Organizations are thus exploring modern SAP BPC competitors that offer the same capabilities. Yet those alternatives must also meet the challenges of complex global consolidation requirements, broader close capabilities (e.g., account reconciliations), and financial & operational planning scenarios, with the volumes of data needed to support those processes.

Organizations are looking to finally deliver on the promise of one source of truth. To unify the full consolidation and close lifecycle and financial & operational planning with built-in dashboarding, reporting and analysis, from the balance to the transaction level in one solution. Ultimately, the goal is a single solution that meets the requirements of modern organizations and grows with them to meet future requirements.

In this article, we’ll review SAP BPC competitors to examine the key features, capabilities and pros/cons. We aim to give you the information needed to make an informed decision about the right SAP BPC alternative for your organization.

What Is SAP BPC?

SAP BPC was developed to bring together consolidations and planning into one Excel-based interface to ensure familiarity among Finance professionals. With built-in financial intelligence, SAP BPC helped Finance streamline consolidations and produce consolidated Profit & Loss, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow statements. Because of its Excel-based interface, ability to cover multiple planning scenarios and a common data model, organizations were able to run their planning and forecasting scenarios and reconcile plans to actuals for variance reporting and analysis.

With SAP BPC end-of-support set for 2030, many organizations have either already selected or are currently in various stages of selection processes to find SAP BPC alternatives.

To produce this article, we evaluated numerous reviews and analyst reports, which serve as the typical starting point for selecting the right CPM/EPM platform. We then evaluated alternatives based on five key criteria:

  1. End-to-end management of enterprise-wide consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning and forecasting
  2. Built-in data quality engine, in the hands of Finance, to provide a strong, flexible foundation in integration and data quality
  3. Ultimate agility to adapt to varying levels of granularity in the business and across consolidation, planning and forecasting processes
  4. Optimized end-user experience to drive efficiency and effectiveness, eliminating time-consuming and error-prone manual processes
  5. Trusted insights from the balance to transaction level with transparency, auditability and actionable details behind every number

Now let’s dive into an overview of the key features, highlights and benefits of SAP BPC for consolidation and planning. To help you find the right solution for your organization, we’ll cover the pros/cons and alternatives. Looking for more information on other top CPM/BPM software? Check out our review: 5 Best SAP BPC Alternatives for 2024.

What Was SAP BPC Used For?

SAP BPC

For decades, global organizations have relied on solutions such as SAP BPC for global consolidations and planning processes. SAP BPC had built-in financial intelligence to streamline consolidations so that Finance could produce consolidated Profit & Loss, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow statements. In addition, SAP BPC had built-in planning capabilities (e.g., spreading) to streamline the planning user input during planning processes.

However, SAP BPC never delivered on the promise of one solution. Most customers needed to manage separate consolidation and planning applications. Then, these applications would need to be integrated. Additional applications were often needed to bring everything together for analysis and variance reporting.

SAP BPC Key Features

SAP BPC is known for several key capabilities:

SAP BPC Pros

SAP BPC Cons

SAP BPC Alternatives

Enterprises today are looking to replace SAP BPC with more modern, cloud-based approaches to CPM/EPM. Many SAP BPC alternatives take the traditional multi-solution approach to CPM, which still results in complex management of multiple solutions, interfaces and integrations. However, solutions such as OneStream unify consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning, reporting, and analysis in one platform.

Enterprises therefore have options to achieve organizational CPM/EPM goals and, with the right choice, can get closer to that elusive one source of truth. The following solutions are the best alternatives for end-to-end management of enterprise-wide consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning and forecasting:

·         OneStream

·         SAP EPM

·         Oracle EPM

·         Wolters Kluwer CCH Tagetik

·         Workday Adaptive Planning

Conclusion

With the looming end-of-support for SAP BPC, organizations are actively looking for alternatives. OneStream’s Intelligent Finance Platform is the only CPM/EPM solution that delivers end-to-end management of enterprise-wide consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning and forecasting in a unified platform. This platform enables Finance and Operations teams to better collaborate and finally deliver on a single source of truth.

With over 1,400 customers globally, many successful migrations from SAP BPC to OneStream and a mission to ensure every customer is a reference, OneStream stands as the only truly unified platform for CPM/EPM.

Learn More

Want to know more? Check out OneStream’s video about what comes after SAP BPC/BFC/BCS here.

Learn More

For decades, organizations worldwide have relied on SAP BPC (Business Planning and Consolidation) for their financial consolidation and planning needs. However, at the time of writing this article, the end of support for SAP BPC has been updated and set for 2030 but has been a moving target. Organizations are now proactively exploring SAP BPC alternatives that go beyond simply matching SAP BPC capabilities to finally deliver on the promise of one source of truth. What’s needed to deliver it? Unifying the full consolidation and close lifecycle and financial & operational planning, with built-in dashboarding, reporting and analysis, from the balance to the transaction level.

What exactly does the post-SAP BPC landscape have to offer? Let’s take a closer look at five of the top SAP BPC alternatives and competitors. In this article, we’ll discuss not only key features and capabilities, but also any potential drawbacks or limitations for each alternative – to give you the information needed to make an informed decision about the right SAP BPC alternative for your organization.

What Is SAP BPC?

SAP BPC is a solution developed by former Hyperion Solutions employees after the acquisition/merger of Hyperion Solutions and Arbor Software (Essbase). By design, the solution was developed to bring together consolidations and planning into one Excel-based interface to ensure familiarity among Finance professionals. SAP BPC had built-in financial intelligence to streamline consolidations so that Finance could produce consolidated Profit & Loss, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow statements.

More specifically, financial intelligence meant the solution had currency translations, intercompany eliminations and account attributes to ensure an account behaved correctly when consolidating and across time.

Customers liked SAP BPC for three main reasons:

However, SAP BPC never delivered on the promise of one solution. Most customers needed to manage business-level differences in consolidation granularity and different levels of granularity for planning from actuals (i.e., strategic plans at a summary level, budgets and forecasts at a lower level, and actuals at a detailed level), but still reconcile with actuals for analysis and reporting. To achieve that, most customers would have separate consolidation applications and planning applications. These applications would then need to be integrated, and often, additional applications were needed to bring everything together for analysis and variance reporting.

Under SAP, BPC moved away from the standard Excel-based interface by making it more web enabled. SAP migrated BPC to work on SAP NetWeaver and S/4 Hana on-premise, in addition to the original Microsoft platform. The result? Added complexities in the form of multiple back-ends, clunky interfaces and complex integrations – resulting in cost and duplication of data and metadata, time-consuming processes, and upgrades.

With the SAP BPC end of support now set for 2030, many organizations have either already selected alternatives or are in various stages of selection processes to find SAP BPC competitors. What alternatives should you consider based on your business needs? Let’s review the top options to help you find the right solution.

5 Best SAP BPC Alternatives

Given the 2030 end of support date for SAP BPC, this article gives an overview of the five best Corporate Performance Management (CPM)/Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) solutions. The selected solutions are ideal for enterprises looking to replace SAP BPC with something that delivers on the promise of a unified platform for consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning.

To produce this list, we evaluated numerous reviews and analyst reports, which are the typical starting point for CPM/EPM selection processes. We then evaluated alternatives based on five key criteria:

Now let’s dive into the details of the top five options for an SAP BPC alternative, including a quick look at the pros and cons of each.

1. OneStream

OneStream is the best SAP BPC alternative
OneStream is the best SAP BPC alternative

OneStream is the only solution for CPM/EPM that delivers end-to-end management of enterprise-wide consolidation, close, and financial & operational planning and forecasting in a unified platform. This unified platform enables Finance and Operations teams to better collaborate and deliver a single source of truth. Having that single source eliminates the complexity of multiple solutions, interfaces and integrations; heavy cost and duplication of data and metadata; and time-consuming processes and upgrades.

With OneStream’s built-in data quality engine and pre-built connectors, Finance is in control, providing a strong, flexible foundation in data quality that’s ERP and source system agnostic, as real-time as needed, with drill down and drill back to any source. Those capabilities provide not only auditability across all close, planning, reporting and analysis processes, but also actionable insights behind every number.

Guided workflows and task management provide standard, defined and repeatable close, planning and operational processes. These capabilities simplify complexity for business users by guiding them through all data management, data collection, verification, approval, certification, locking, reporting and analysis processes. This ensures operational relevance and direct reconciliation for all processes, regardless of different levels of granularity across businesses and scenarios. OneStream also eliminates the need to implement and integrate multiple solutions, delivering confidence and reliability in all business user-driven processes.

Pros:

Cons:

2. SAP EPM

SAP EPM is another SAP BPC alternative

With the end of support for SAP BPC set for 2030, SAP’s go-forward solutions for EPM are a combination of SAP Group Reporting embedded in S/4HANA for consolidations and SAP Analytics Cloud for financial and operational planning.

SAP S/4HANA Group Reporting is an enterprise solution for consolidations. As part of S/4HANA, the Group Reporting solution leverages a combination of features tied to Group Reporting for consolidations and S/4HANA for core close capabilities. SAP Analytics Cloud (SAC) is a cloud-based platform for planning, business intelligence (BI) and predictive analytics that enables organizations to visualize, plan and make data-driven decisions.

Pros:

Cons:

3. Oracle EPM

Oracle EPM is a competitor to SAP BPC

Oracle EPM is a suite of business applications designed for end-to-end management of enterprise-wide consolidation, close, financial planning & forecasting, and performance reporting. Oracle closely resembles SAP, with legacy solutions from the acquisition of Hyperion also ending support in 2031 for Hyperion HFM and Hyperion Planning. The Oracle suite of applications is being redeveloped on the Cloud, consisting of individual best-of-breed solutions for the following:

Pros:

Cons:

4. Wolters Kluwer CCH Tagetik

Tagetik is a good SAP BPC competitor

Tagetik was originally developed in 2005 to deliver trusted, comprehensive and scalable CPM solutions globally and was acquired by Wolters Kluwer in 2017. Today, CCH Tagetik is marketed as an end-to-end financial close and consolidation solution for group and entity controllers. Tagetik is comprised of multiple solutions for financial consolidation and close, account reconciliation and transaction matching, financial and management reporting, disclosure management (via a partnership with CoreFiling), and ESG & sustainability performance management – available both on-premise and in the cloud.

Tagetik positions themselves as having a unified platform for CPM/EPM – at least at first glance. The details of how the solutions work together instead make it clear that the platform still suffers from some of the same integration and solution complexities as the multiple application approaches of other vendors in the CPM/EPM market.

Pros:

Cons:

5. Workday Adaptive Planning

Workday Adaptive Planning is an SAP BPC alternative

Workday Adaptive Insight was founded in 2003 as a planning solution with limited consolidation capabilities and acquired by Workday in 2018. It was rebranded initially as Adaptive Planning, but it is now being marketed as Adaptive Planning and Consolidation, through a combination of their field level partnership with Fluence and a simplified version of their ERP, Workday Financials.

Workday Adaptive Planning covers planning, consolidation, analytics, and reporting functions. Built on a proprietary in-memory database, the solution enables collaboration and real time updates in a spreadsheet-like browser user interface and supports integration of data from ERP and other source systems.

Pros:

Cons:

Conclusion: Choose the Best SAP BPC Alternative

As organizations look for alternatives to SAP BPC, OneStream’s Intelligent Finance Platform stands out as the best alternative. Why? To start, OneStream provides a modern, unified platform for consolidations, close, financial & operational planning, reporting and analysis. The platform also finally delivers on the elusive one source of truth.

With over 1,300+ customers, many successful migrations from SAP BPC to OneStream and a mission to ensure every customer is a reference, OneStream stands as the truly unified platform for CPM/EPM.

Want to know more? Check out OneStream’s video about what comes after SAP BPC/BFC/BCS here.

Watch Video

Hundreds of organisations that have standardised on SAP for their ERP have modernised Finance with OneStream for the best Financial Reporting, Close & Consolidation and FP&A led business planning solution available.

Comparatively, the fragmented approach taken by legacy EPM 1.0 vendors such as SAP, Oracle/Hyperion and IBM has limited the ability of Finance organisations to execute effective EPM processes.  These disconnected application architectures force Finance organisations to spend most of their time managing multiple products, integrating data from source systems and moving data between EPM products.  As a result, Finance has less time for analysing data and supporting decision-making.

While many organisations have tried standardising on a single ERP system to manage all their financial and operational processes, few have fully achieved this goal.  It doesn’t last because the very next acquisition changes that and the more common case involves deployment and support of multiple ERP systems across various divisions and locations.

OneStream is different.  Why?  Because it can integrate with and map disparate data sources and charts of accounts.  Through those capabilities, OneStream provides a consistent platform for financial consolidation, reporting, planning and analysis – before, during and after any potential multi-year migration to S/4 HANA.  The platform also addresses the ongoing challenge that many organisations face in integrating data from non-SAP systems that will inevitably exist at subsidiaries or acquired companies.

SAP ERP Challenges with EPM

SAP ERP users face a number of common challenges with legacy on-premises approaches to EPM:

Despite those challenges, SAP, Oracle and other ERP vendors are proposing that customers now adopt a new set of cloud-based EPM applications closely tied to their ERP systems.  But more commonly, organisations are preferring to implement and support modern  EPM solutions such as OneStream.  The reason for this approach includes (1) the need to integrate data from multiple ERPs and other data sources, and (2) the preference for a uniquely unified data model and solution to ensure alignment between key processes and an improved overall user experience.

The Power of OneStream Integration

OneStream is completely agnostic to ERP strategy.  Why does this matter?  Well, it’s simple:  Unlike SAP’s EPM strategy, OneStream doesn’t require (though still works with) S/4 HANA and therefore offers a much faster time to value than SAP’s long-term strategy (see Figure 1).  Rather than relying on a single ERP strategy, OneStream seamlessly integrates data from multiple sources – such as ERP (including SAP R/3, ECC and S/4 HANA), CRM, HCM and data warehouses (BW) – to create a single, powerful and governed version of the truth. 

And that’s exactly why we would always advise to implement OneStream before S/4 HANA.

Figure 1 – Accelerated value with OneStream.

With OneStream, organisations have one solution to integrate regardless of how they rationalise ERPs, SAP S/4HANA migration and data landscape changes.  Built-in Financial Intelligence, an ‘accounting brain’, and the agility to get up and running quickly means there is never a lost step in the close, budgeting, financial & operational planning, and reporting processes.

In other words, OneStream finally delivers on the elusive and overused one source of truth promise to get immediate value while sustaining current requirements and designs for tomorrow.  Customers who have already implemented OneStream as their solid management layer have seen no impact to their EPM processes, regardless of what’s happening in the group ERP layer (shift to S/4 HANA) and overall systems landscape of any newly acquired organisations.

Key Benefits for SAP ERP Customers

SAP ERP and OneStream customers have already achieved many benefits, which are illustrated below

Reduced time, effort and cost of maintaining legacy applications.

Streamlined financial close, consolidation and reporting.

Improved agility in budgeting, planning and forecasting

Accelerated delivery of new applications and business insights

Those benefits collectively accelerate the time to value.  In fact, Nucleus Research recently published a report highlighting how OneStream customers have reduced their financial close and planning cycles by up to 50%.

Customer Success

McCain Foods

McCain Foods Limited is a Canadian multinational frozen food company established in 1957 in Florenceville, New Brunswick, Canada.  Today, McCain Foods is a global company with 22,000 employees worldwide and corporate offices in Toronto, Canada.

McCain Foods converted from SAP BPC to OneStream and now use it on top of an SAP ERP for financial consolidation, financial reporting, and management reporting, and added lease accounting capabilities.  And the company did it all within a 7-month period to meet the implementation date for IFRS 16.

‘Extensibility is such a powerful feature of OneStream’, said Katie Shotbolt, Director, Financial Accounting, McCain Foods.  ‘By extending our corporate chart of accounts to the level of each unique GL system, the data in OneStream is both relevant and inclusive for all our regions.  It allows corporate and regions to speak the same language.  In our old world with SAP BPC, we were closing the books on Day 6, and now we’re closing at Day 4.  That’s something we are incredibly proud of and something OneStream has helped us achieve’.

Conclusion

With OneStream in place as the EPM management layer, organisations can move forward with confidence.  Any unexpected delays in a potential move to S/4 HANA won’t impact the robustness of process and reporting.  In addition, any new organisational events (e.g., acquisitions) can rapidly be integrated into OneStream for immediate reporting.  And if there’s a subsequent shift from the acquisition’s legacy ERP system to S/4 HANA, that shift won’t have any impact on the reporting in OneStream – which comes with a host of benefits.

How Can You Learn More About OneStream?

To find out more, check out the Top 10 reasons customers choose OneStream to get more value from their SAP ERP investments.  Also check out our customer case studies and testimonials to learn why over 300 SAP customers have chosen OneStream’s unified platform – and never looked back!

Learn More

For decades, organizations worldwide have relied on Cartesis/SAP BFC (BusinessObjects Financial Consolidation) for complex consolidation needs. Cartesis/SAP BFC has provided valuable support by simplifying financial close processes and by enabling sophisticated statutory consolidations and reporting. However, the end of support for Cartesis/SAP BFC has been updated yet again and is set for 2030. Organizations are proactively exploring advanced solutions that not only match the capabilities of these legacy systems but also integrate consolidations with planning, budgeting and forecasting.

In the previous post in our “What’s Next for Cartesis/SAP BFC Customers” blog series, we detailed 5 key considerations for Cartesis/SAP BFC customers who are moving toward an evaluation process, and identified 3 options to consider, as outlined in the first post in this series:

We’ve curated a guide to show you real time examples of how customers like you have overcome those very challenges head on. Click here to see Top 10 Reasons Why Customers Choose OneStream to Get More Value from Their SAP Investment.

In this blog post, we’ll focus on Choice 3, and show why OneStream’s Intelligent Finance Platform emerges as the optimal solution for Cartesis/SAP BFC customers, focusing on consolidations as the central topic.

The Legacy of Cartesis/SAP BFC in Sophisticated Consolidations

Cartesis/SAP BFC was one of the most technically capable, sophisticated consolidation solutions. Engineered to manage complex financial consolidation processes with a unique integrated data model, serving as a repository for intricate consolidations and integrating various financial management data for reporting on actuals, budgets and forecasts. Below are some of the key capability’s customers have depended on:

However, despite Cartesis/SAP BFC’s support ending in 2030, no immediate parity with SAP Group Reporting exists. Nor is parity expected until 2030 if you have confidence in SAP’s roadmap. As a result, organizations are seeking the next generation of sophisticated consolidation solutions.

But the good news is that organizations now have a choice.

Why OneStream Is the Answer for Sophisticated Consolidations and Beyond

Modern Corporate Performance Management (CPM) solutions such as OneStream present an array of sophisticated consolidation capabilities while offering a unified approach to CPM. That approach distinguishes OneStream from other approaches that rely on a patchwork of multiple products and integrations.

Architected to be a unified platform for all CPM processes, OneStream started with consolidations at its core, arguably the hardest and most complex part of CPM. Today, the platform has effectively tackled the complexities of global consolidations and reporting.

In the chart below, we compare the complex consolidation capabilities between OneStream and Cartesis/SAP BFC to illustrate why OneStream stands out.

The list below gets a little more granular on some of the key capabilities that come with using OneStream:

Not to mention, the OneStream MarketPlace extends the platform’s capabilities with solutions such as Account Reconciliations, Transaction Matching, Tax Provisioning and specialty planning solutions (e.g., for People, Capital and Cash Planning). Continuous innovations in areas such as Sensible Machine Learning also mean customers derive continuous value from their investment in OneStream, lowering both technical debt and the total cost of ownership.

Conclusion

As organizations confront the challenges of handling sophisticated consolidations in an increasingly complex financial landscape, legacy systems like Cartesis/SAP BFC and other multi-product CPM approaches fall short. Instead, OneStream’s Intelligent Finance Platform provides a modern, unified platform for financial consolidations, reporting, budgeting, planning and forecasting.

By transitioning to OneStream, Cartesis/SAP BFC customers can seamlessly meet the requirements for complex global consolidations while embracing flexibility, scalability, collaboration, data governance and continuous innovations. 

With over 1,300 customers, many successful migrations from Cartesis/SAP BFC to OneStream, and a mission to ensure every customer is a reference, OneStream stands as the pathway to a future of optimized, accurate, and trusted financial consolidations and unified CPM.

Learn More

Ready to join the organizations that have already taken the step from Cartesis/SAP BFC to OneStream?  Check out our video here, and be sure to visit our website.

Watch Video

In the previous post in our “What’s Next for Cartesis/SAP BFC Customers” blog series, we covered how many organisations are now facing the end of support for their Cartesis/SAP BFC application, currently announced for 2027.  Of course, this end date could be further extended if significant pressure is placed on SAP.  We also looked at some of the concerns/risks.  Plus, we detailed 5 key considerations for Cartesis/SAP BFC customers who are moving towards an evaluation process.

Given the above challenges, current Cartesis/SAP BFC customers have 3 options to consider, as outlined in the first post in this series: 

In this blog post, the focus will be on Choice 2.

Choice 2 – Invest in SAP’s Unproven Next-Generation Products

SAP has chosen a vastly different path than OneStream for the future of SAP EPM solutions.  Much like Oracle, SAP chose to continue with the legacy of the past by creating new, separate cloud solutions for each key EPM process area.  This suite of applications is still fragmented – rather than innovated towards the future of EPM where all processes can and should exist in one unified platform. 

The previous generation of EPM applications was dependent on the technology available at the time.  Accordingly, the financial consolidation process was typically built in technology suited to processing data, running calculations and handling non-financial data/commentary.  The planning process was typically built using cube technology to handle volumes of data and fast analysis.  With the advancements now available, however, separating these processes is no longer necessary.  The latest technology can handle the differences in data granularity, differing levels of dimensionality and distinct process steps – all in a single, unified solution.

The different path SAP has chosen results in this current fragmented suite of EPM products:

  1. SAP Analytics Cloud (SAC)
  2. SAP Group Reporting
  3. SAP Group Reporting Data Integrator – tool that gathers financial data from business units
  4. SAP Datasphere – latest generation of SAP Data Warehouse Cloud
  5. SAP Fiori – a design system to create specific business applications
  6. SAP Profitability & Performance Management – separate product for automating all allocation-based business processes
  7. Account Reconciliations provided by Blackline
  8. Tax Reporting solution provided by a partner, promoted in SAP Store
  9. Lease Accounting provided by partner Nakisa

Customer/Peer Reviews

SAP does not have an entry in Gartner Peer reviews for Cloud Financial Close Solutions.  Does SAP not consider Group Reporting to be in this category?  SAP BFC does appear for financial consolidation, but no reviews have been posted since 2019.  The former Outlooksoft product – now SAP BPC also appears but with little focus on close and consolidation, and only 52 reviews have been given in the life of the product.

SAP SAC appears on Gartner Peer Reviews as well – in Cloud Extended Planning & Analysis Solutions with 95 reviews and in Financial Planning Software with 112 reviews.  I would expect to see higher numbers given the number of customers SAP claims to serve. 

Some of the Gartner reviews include dislikes, as shown in the excerpts from actual reviews:

  1. “Some of the features in planning that exist in EPM are not yet available in SAC, and user adoption is challenging as users are attached to EPM/BPC”.
  2. “Insufficient data modelling capabilities, product immaturity, oversold capabilities”.
  3. “Involves steep learning curve.  UI should be more polished and modernised”.
  4. “Sometimes we want to modify things, and the way to do it is very complicated.  It is not user friendly.  Simple things like conditional formatting or smart text are very difficult to add”.
  5. “Reporting/story building and editing is NOT intuitive or user-friendly at all”.
  6. “Getting started time needs quite some onboarding.  User community is not very active, but I guess this is due to the short time of tool availability”.

In contrast, OneStream has 269 reviews in Financial Planning Solutions (4.6 average rating) and 258 reviews in Cloud Financial Close Solutions (4.7 average rating).

Key Considerations

The following key considerations/questions will significantly help facilitate the evaluation process and value assessment when you’re considering what’s next for your EPM solution: 

SAP EPM Strategy

I have the greatest respect for SAP’s ERP strategy, and the company has an excellent product – one well-respected by many.  Comparatively, the SAP EPM strategy is a very different story.  The EPM strategy is not taking advantage of technological advancements which can change the game for EPM solutions by unifying all processes. Regarding EPM & ERP, my best advice when I speak to organisations has always been consistent:  the EPM management layer is best kept separate from any ERP.  This separation delivers a degree of future proofing for the organisation, and being ERP agnostic leaves room for a lot of flexibility as the organisation evolves and changes over time.

Reasons to Change

Given those considerations, consider joining the more than 300 SAP ERP customers who use OneStream. Below are just some of the reasons these organisations moved to OneStream:

Those reasons highlight why the most natural and capable successor to Cartesis/SAP BFC is OneStream.

Move Forward with the Next Generation of CPM

OneStream’s Intelligent Finance platform (See Figure 1) is completely agnostic to ERP strategy.  Rather than relying on a central ERP strategy, Intelligent Finance platforms integrate data from multiple sources – such as ERP, CRM, HCM and data warehouses – to create a single and governed version of the truth across finance and operational processes. 

Figure 1 – OneStream Intelligent Finance Platform

This interoperability is important.  Why?  It keeps the management layer technology independent from the transactional layers.  Any IT department that forces a move to a single tech solution is setting the organisation up for unnecessary costs and delays when future changes occur.  After all, you can never say never to changes in your business model or structure.

To learn more about Choice 3 – evaluating alternate EPM strategies such as OneStream – and to understand why OneStream is the most logical move from Cartesis/SAP BFC, tune in for our next and final blog post in the ‘What’s next for Cartesis/SAP BFC Customers’ series.

Learn more!

Ready to join the organisations that have taken the step from Cartesis/SAP BFC to OneStream?  Check out our video here, and be sure to visit our website.

Watch the Webinar

In our most recent “What’s Next for Cartesis/SAP BFC Customers” blog post, we dove into the history of Cartesis and how the company came to be absorbed first into Business Objects and then SAP.  We examined the key positive reasons many organizations purchased, used and liked the Cartesis/SAP BFC application.  We also highlighted some of the challenges of using the application today:

Ultimately, given the above challenges, current Cartesis/SAP BFC customers have 3 options to consider, as outlined in the first post in this series: 

In this blog post, the focus will be on Choice 1

Choice 1 – Continue with Legacy Cartesis/SAP BFC until Support Ends

Many organizations are now facing the end of support for their Cartesis/SAP BFC application, currently announced for 2027.  Of course, this end date could always be further extended if significant pressure is placed upon SAP by a large group of high-paying customers.  This wait-and-see strategy is not, however, a reliable one for such a critical system.

The Cartesis/SAP BFC solution is considered to have “solution maturity,” so SAP has effectively ended any new functional investment in this solution and consequently plans no new release or support packages for SAP BFC 10.1.  What does that mean?  Essentially, even now, if an organization goes through some form of change and needs to account for something differently than before, this capability may not be available in the solution.  The consultant community might not even be able to build the capability, let alone deploy it to existing SAP BFC users.

The dwindling number of professionals/consultants who can implement, configure and support the Cartesis/SAP BFC application should be a major concern.  Why?  Well, should an organization manage to continue successfully using the application, building any additional capabilities will be challenging at best.  The impact of that reduced functionality could result in potential delays as the resource pool decreases and the remaining resources become busier.

The above concerns are just the beginning, too.  Among those organizations that continue using Cartesis/SAP BFC, many other concerns apply, and some will only be further exacerbated once the 2027 end-of-support date has passed.  Here are a few of such additional concerns:

If you’re running Cartesis/SAP BFC, your organization made an excellent choice at the time of adoption.  Many considerations likely led to that decision, and those considerations are also effective when examining what to do going forward. 

5 Key Considerations

These 5 key considerations will significantly help facilitate your evaluation process and value assessment: 

  1. Risk – Can you take the risk of running a solution that won’t be further enhanced?  How will the auditors view the looming end-of-support date for this critical application?
  2. Efficiency – How is your team suffering from using lengthy processes, manually moving data and navigating cumbersome administration?
  3. Effectiveness – The effectiveness of the system to deliver will reduce, and many workarounds may be required to handle expected or unexpected change.
  4. ROI/TCO – The long-term costs will likely be higher to stay with Cartesis/SAP BFC due to the separate applications and the multiple integration points – plus the significant administration burden required to manage key processes.
  5. Evolution – You must fully understand the advancements available in the next-generation EPM applications to meet both current and future requirements.  Then bring what you know into any evaluation and value assessment.

In other words, take the time to fully review your current usage of Cartesis/SAP BFC and chart the correct course forward for your organization.  Choice 1 is really a delaying tactic rather than a realistic long-term option.  Any rushed decision to change – for example, selecting the wrong solution because there was no time for a proper process – will only cause unnecessary pain. 

Cartesis/SAP BFC was one of the most technically strong and capable solutions available when your organization purchased it.  Today, you must follow the same process not only to avoid taking a downgrade in capability but also to ensure your organization moves forward with the next generation of solutions.

Move Forward with the Next Generation of CPM

OneStream’s Intelligent Finance platform is completely agnostic to ERP strategy.  Rather than relying on a central ERP strategy, Intelligent Finance platforms integrate data from multiple sources – such as ERP, CRM, HCM and data warehouses – to create a single and governed version of the truth. 

This interoperability is important.  Why?  It keeps the management layer technology independent from the transactional layers.  Any IT department that forces a move to a single tech solution is setting the organization up for unnecessary costs and delays when future changes occur.  And as we all know, you can never say never to changes in your business model or structure.

To learn about Choice 2 – invest in SAP’s unproven next-generation products – tune in for our next blog post in this series, in which we’ll examine the choice in more detail.

Learn more!

Ready to join the organizations that have taken the step from Cartesis/SAP BFC to OneStream?  Check out our video here, and be sure to visit our website.

Download the Video

Many of you in the Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) space immediately recognize the name Cartesis, regardless of whether you’re an actual customer.  Before I dive into the nitty gritty about the positives and negatives of Cartesis, though, I’ll dive into a little of the history for those of you unfamiliar with the name.

A French company, Cartesis developed a product eventually renamed from Magnitude to Cartesis Finance.  Cartesis Finance, the company’s flagship offering, was at the time (and using the company’s words) “the only fully integrated, web-based solution for enterprise performance management.” 

Cartesis’ unique integrated data model supported the key financial management activities – planning, budgeting, forecasting, statutory consolidation, management reporting and performance management (see Figure).  While the Cartesis Finance product was sold widely, including in the UK and US, with around 700-800 customers, a large percentage of customers were in France.

Figure 1 – Cartesis Suite Diagram & Integrated Data Model

Cast your minds back to 2007.  At the time, significant “consolidation” occurred among EPM vendors.  Oracle acquired Hyperion early in the year.  Business Objects announced the acquisition of Cartesis the following month, and then SAP rushed to acquire OutlookSoft.

SAP went a step further in late 2007 and acquired Business Objects.  This acquisition resulted in SAP owning multiple EPM solutions.  While Cartesis Finance became SAP Business Objects Financial Close (BOFC), it was later renamed simply to SAP BFC.

Now that you know the history, I’ll dive into the positives and negatives of Cartesis/SAP BFC.

Cartesis/SAP BFC – The Positives

Cartesis Finance (previously Magnitude) was designed in France, a country known for having the most complex accounting and reporting rules in the world.  Cartesis began as an internal project in the global French company Vivendi and was subsequently spun out into an independent company.  The team therefore focused on the complexity of both global companies and the French accounting rules, targeting primarily the largest French companies and those in the CAC-40, France’s principal stock market index.  The resulting solution was technically strong and could handle almost any challenge.

In Cartesis’ words, “Our powerful technology handles the complex but essential task of unifying information, people and processes in a single data model that can be applied easily and consistently across your company’s business.”

Below are the sweet spots for Cartesis’ product:

Cartesis/SAP BFC also natively supported the elimination of inter-segment trading within a single legal entity with multiple business segments.  Again, this feature intentionally supported only the largest, most complex consolidations.

In Cartesis/SAP BFC, all journal entry data was analyzed by a specific dimension dedicated to tracking journals, called “journal entry number.” Consequently, reports could be built that retrieved the detail of a specific amount based on the journal entry header.  This type of report was extremely useful in determining how an amount is built up from the input level to the consolidated position – especially if multiple manual journal entries had been posted to the same account.

In sum, Cartesis/SAP BFC was much more capable than peer platforms at supporting several reporting cycles with differing analyses.  The solution evolved to support the complex statutory consolidation requirements in the business models of the largest organizations.  This evolution, however, was to the detriment of other requirements (e.g., budgeting, forecasting and cost & profitability requirements) – and the negatives of Cartesis didn’t end there.

Cartesis/SAP BFC – The Negatives

As alluded above, the evolution of Cartesis/SAP BFC continued a complex statutory consolidation trajectory.   This trajectory eventually contributed to some challenges when other more comprehensive EPM technology suites appeared on the market that offered planning & budgeting capabilities or more advanced analytics.  

Another major issue was the technical architecture of Cartesis/SAP BFC.  The relational database design was complex, and SAP would eventually choose not to make the application available on HANA, creating an uncertain future where the product would only be supported for a set number of years.

Despite being a popular application, Cartesis/SAP BFC has the following recognized limitations:

In the positives, I mentioned the tight control over the data collection/entry environment.  Many users, however, found this control to be a negative over time.  Why?  Well, for data entry in Cartesis/SAP BFC, each specific data entry point had to be explicitly opened during the development phase.  By default, all intersecting data points were blocked for data entry or importation.  During implementation, the development team must then open each individual data point or ranges of data points.  As you can imagine, this process caused delays and frustrations when new intersections needed to be opened.

The intuitive workflows that many users today are familiar with were not a feature of Cartesis/SAP BFC.  Data submitted to Cartesis/SAP BFC had to follow a pre-defined process of being entered into a data entry environment known as the “package layer.”  Once submitted to a package, data had to be validated, published and integrated.  Publishing a package was the equivalent of stating the data within the package was available for review.  Any amount not integrated (data would physically be copied to a pre-consolidated level) would not be selected by the consolidation.  No deviation from this cumbersome submission process was allowed, which frustrated many users.

Finally, intercompany reconciliation/matching at balance and transaction was only available with a separate web-based tool called “Intercompany Server from Cartesis,” since re-branded to SAP Intercompany.  Using the tool required manual data transfers to and from the actual data source.

SAP EPM – The Options for Cartesis/SAP BFC Customers

Many organizations are facing the end of support for their Cartesis/SAP BFC application, announced for 2030.  Many customers will be forced to implement SAP S/4 HANA.  Both those customers and those using other SAP Legacy EPM Systems for Consolidation and/or FP&A face high risks in following the SAP Strategy with Group Reporting and Analytics.

SAP’s vision for EPM is based on a combination of the new Group Reporting product for consolidations and SAP Analytics Cloud (SAC) for planning and budgeting.  SAP Group Reporting and Analytics Cloud for Planning requires that customers move to S/4 HANA Cloud for their ERP.  

To give customers enough time to transition to SAP S/4HANA for group reporting, SAP decided the following:

Those decisions leave customers at risk.  So if your organization uses Cartesis/SAP BFC, you have three choices:

To learn about those alternate strategies, make sure to tune in for our next blog in this series, in which we’ll examine the choices in more detail.

Learn More

Ready to join the organizations that have taken the step from Cartesis/SAP BFC to OneStream?  Check out our video here, and be sure to visit our website.

Watch the Video

Having worked in the Finance/Software business for more than 25 years, I regularly get asked which should be implemented first – EPM or ERP, such as SAP S/4 HANA.  I always say EPM!  Why?  Well, the EPM solution is a management layer above all transaction systems.  EPM software provides a level of agility and visibility, one that’s now critical for any organisation seeking to successfully handle the complexities of growth, change and disruption.  With this effective management layer in place, organisations can easily upgrade or replace underlying ERP/GL systems as and when required – without disrupting the flow of critical management processes.

I would say the same exact thing to someone considering SAP S/4 HANA.

And as far as software goes, OneStream fits the bill perfectly because it’s completely agnostic to ERP strategy.  Why does this feature matter?  Well, it’s simple: Unlike SAP’s EPM strategy, OneStream doesn’t require (though works with) S/4 HANA and therefore offers a much faster time to value than SAP’s long-term strategy.  Rather than relying on a central ERP strategy, OneStream seamlessly integrates data from multiple sources – such as ERP, CRM, HCM and data warehouses – to create a single, powerful and governed version of the truth.  And that’s exactly why I advise to implement OneStream before S/4 HANA.

S/4 HANA doesn’t come cheap and can take time to implement, to say the least.  But that just makes it even more important to focus on time to value and how to maximise the return on investment.

5 Key Reasons to Implement OneStream before SAP S/4 HANA

The following key points explain why implementing OneStream prior to having the S/4 HANA instance up and running offers so many benefits:

1. Inter- & Intra-Company Differences – Depending on how the S/4 HANA implementation is being done, OneStream can help with both inter- and intra-company differences.  Some organisations move over to S/4 HANA in stages (instead of the big-bang shift) and even break up the entity and move by segment.  When this segmentation happens, it can ultimately create an issue. How?  Well, part of the data is in S/4 HANA and part of the data is in the legacy system.  Users are then often forced to copy or move transactions between the two systems.  And that approach can cause timing issues and differences in the balances.

Having a holistic view in OneStream by those related accounts can help users identify any issues/differences.  By bringing together the old and new systems, OneStream not only ensures that any un-booked or missing transactions are identified, but also validates that the correct feeds of data are being included.

Transaction matching can be used within OneStream (See Figure 1) to get visibility of transactions across both S/4 HANA and the legacy system.  This visibility delivers the end-state view to users in a robust future state system – and does so in a faster timeframe than waiting for the S/4 HANA implementation to be completed.

Figure 1 – Transaction Matching in OneStream

2. GL Account Harmonisation – This task is critical for any S/4 implementation and can be very difficult to manage with multiple systems. Users find it difficult to get any kind of trend analysis, and Excel is often used just to maintain a view of what’s happening.  Over a typical S/4 HANA implementation period of 2-3 years, this disparate system can be a significant headache for the team.

If OneStream is implemented prior to SAP S4 HANA, however, the end-state accounting structures are available for reference and ensure the correct alignment of the new system.  Data can be loaded from the GL level into the detail of a cube.  Doing so ensures everyone has insight into where the data is coming from in the new system.  And that visibility gives people time to switch and adopt the new accounts, entities, structures, etc., while also understanding how the legacy data maps into or utilises the new S/4 HANA structure.  Users can drill down from balances in OneStream to the transactional-level data – regardless of whether it’s been loaded from legacy systems or the new S/4 HANA.  Importantly, this process isn’t ‘throwaway work’ and ensures the correct alignment of the OneStream and S/4 HANA systems right from the start.

3. Cashflow Accounting – Cashflow statements are not only notoriously difficult to set up but also continue to be an area of concern for many organisations. In any S/4 HANA implementation, delivering cashflow statements can take a considerable amount of time due to the process involved in rolling out the system to all entities.

The best option is to implement the cashflow statement first in OneStream and continue to use it going forward.  The cashflow statement/calculation setup in OneStream will provide a reference for the future state of setting up cash flow accounts in the S/4 HANA system.  This reference ensures a fast, reliable delivery of the full cashflow to users – without any disruption or delay during the transition from legacy to S/4 HANA.  A lot of costly reworking would be required after S/4 HANA implementation if the cashflow setup was delayed until then.

4. User-Defined Dimensions – When it comes to currency translation and allocations, they don’t always get carried forward in any transition from legacy to S/4 HANA. Some of the detail can get lost via summarisation/aggregation, which then makes it very difficult for users to get back to the detail and explain any differences.

If user-defined dimensions are set up for the required level of detail in OneStream (e.g., Customer/Product), however, the S/4 HANA implementation can ensure the new system is set up to provide the same level of granularity.  At any point in time, users can view balances and drill down to the transactional-level detail for a fast analysis and explanation.

5. Sunset Legacy – In any move to a new system, concerns about the historical data often persist. Users must be able to access this detail and use it to compare or explain balances in the future.  Keeping a legacy application alive, though, can result in significant ongoing costs (e.g., support fees and hardware maintenance).

OneStream can be set up so that the legacy systems can feed historical data into a dedicated cube.  In other words, the legacy systems are no longer required.  They can instead be ‘sunset’ whilst retaining the ability to view the history.  This functionality saves the costs and time which would otherwise be involved when accessing the legacy system and extracting information.

Conclusion

Implementing OneStream before SAP S/4 HANA provides organisations with the end-state view of reporting in a robust EPM platform – one that helps organisations save valuable time and avoid added costs.  Taking this approach significantly increases user adoption because OneStream helps users quickly get a consolidated view of the various systems in the new format.  As a result, users get valuable insights faster than with OneStream implemented after S/4 HANA and can drill down to see which legacy accounts or dimensions comprise the numbers at any given time.

With OneStream in place as the EPM management layer, organisations can move forward with confidence.  Any unexpected delays in the move to S/4 HANA won’t impact the robustness of process and reporting.  In addition, any new organisational events (e.g., acquisitions) can rapidly be integrated into OneStream for immediate reporting.  And if there’s a subsequent shift from the acquisition’s legacy ERP system to S/4 HANA, that shift won’t have any impact on the reporting in OneStream – which comes with a host of benefits.

Learn More

Ready to join the organisations that have taken the step to implement OneStream before SAP S/4 HANA?  Click here to download our free white paper titled ‘SAP ERP and OneStream – The Path to Modern Finance’.

Download the White Paper

As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, Finance teams running legacy SAP solutions are being put in an uncomfortable position.  How?  Well, despite billions of investment dollars across thousands of customers, SAP is pushing all long-term Finance Transformation through its SAP HANA platform.  And with support ending for legacy EPM (and widely used) products such as BPC beginning in 2024, Finance organizations have an important question to answer.

How can Finance organizations drive innovation forward with speed and agility, without compromising critical requirements or getting sucked into a multi-year project?

If your organization uses SAP for EPM, you have three choices:

– Choice 1: Continue with legacy SAP EPM products until their end of life.

– Choice 2: Invest in SAP’s unproven next-generation products, such as Group Reporting, Analytics Cloud (SAC), and maybe Central Finance or some variant hybrid strategy. Note that this strategy requires at least one S/4 HANA Finance instance to support Group Reporting.

– Choice 3:  Take control of your Finance Transformation by evaluating alternate EPM strategies with a solution such as OneStream.

Where to begin?  No matter where your organization is on its Finance Transformation journey, getting “under the hood” with a thorough due diligence process is critical to understanding how different technologies can impact your Finance team’s user experience.  And that is exactly why we’re focusing this post, Part 2 of our blog series on demystifying S/4 HANA and SAP EPM, on key evaluation factors to help you assess how SAP’s transformation strategy might impact your organization.

Key Evaluation Factors

Here are the four common evaluation factors we outlined in our first post:

For those of you evaluating an alternative EPM strategy, we’ll also share some of the feedback from our 130+ SAP ERP customers.  Many of them have already replaced SAP BPC, BFC and other legacy products as well.

Let’s dig into each of the key evaluation factors.

Evaluation Factor 1: Complexity

As part of any Finance Transformation, organizations must conquer the complexity inherent within their internal systems to simplify the administration and maintenance of critical processes.  Figure 1 illustrates SAP’s multi-product strategy.  Each product requires its own resources, skill sets and coordination between respective implementations.

Considerations to Evaluate Complexity
Figure 1: Considerations to Evaluate Complexity

As illustrated in Figure 2, the SAP EPM solution is fractured into multiple products.  Each arrow you see is an integration point that must be created and maintained.  SAP Analytics Cloud (SAC) is the only native cloud solution – the other solutions were not designed specifically for the cloud.

Thus, a mixture of platforms – which adds risk, cost and complexity – could be needed.  Lastly, since each product requires its own skill set, administrators are specific to each product and are not leveraged across solution areas.

SAP Next-Generation EPM
Figure 2: SAP Next-Generation EPM

In comparison, OneStream (see Figure 3) is a unified corporate performance management (CPM) solution on a single platform.  There’s only one integration between your source systems and OneStream, regardless of which EPM processes (e.g., planning, financial close, accounting reconciliations) are part of your solution.  Plus, since OneStream is a single product, experienced administrators’ skills can be leveraged across solution domains.

OneStream Platform Graphic
Figure 3: OneStream’s Intelligent Finance Platform

Evaluation Factor 2: Change Management

Change Management (see Figure 4) is another key evaluation factor.  Why?  Because SAP is asking its customers to commit to a Finance Transformation project that will require significant management resources and oversight over several years across the ERP and EPM technology stack.

Considerations to Evaluate Change Management
Figure 4: Considerations to Evaluate Change Management

By contrast, with OneStream, a project requires only updating your CPM management layer.  This step will enable your organization to focus exclusively on innovating and fulfilling the needs of the financial management team and senior executives.

Evaluation Factor 3: Timing

Project timing and time to value are also key evaluation considerations (see Figure 5), especially when evaluating an “ERP first” strategy.  Why?  Well, right from Day 1, organizations will feel the immediate impacts of cash outflows and mass activity across the entire Finance, Supply Chain and other key functions involved in requirement gathering and project planning.

Evaluating Timing of ERP Before EPM Strategy
Figure 5: Evaluating Timing of ERP Before EPM Strategy

Impact of ERP Before EPM Investment Strategy

The SAP EPM architecture requires organizations to implement at least one S4/HANA instance before any other work can be done (see Figure 6).  In addition, the structures for statutory and management reporting must be built in the S/4 HANA environment as the efficiency of Group Reporting and Central Finance are dependent on S/4 HANA structures.  Thus, the initial design portion of the project is lengthened to ensure all EPM and ERP requirements are included in the Global Design.

Why does this matter?  Well, those requirements mean you’re looking at a minimum 18-month ERP implementation before work can even begin on the EPM solutions.  And if you’re part of a large, global and complex organization, your organization could be looking at a 3- to 4-year ERP implementation before that work can begin.

Illustration of ERP Investment Before EPM
Figure 6: Illustration of ERP Investment Before EPM

Comparatively, the OneStream architecture allows you to implement your CPM solution first (see Figure 7).  By devoting your efforts to the CPM solution, you will generally see benefits within 6-12 months of starting the project.

And by focusing on the decision-making layer of Finance Transformation, you will address the critical management needs first.  This strategy will also provide another benefit:  the new chart of accounts would be initially implemented and controlled in OneStream.  Once solidified, this structure would then simplify and reduce the design effort of any new ERP system – which will shorten the ERP implementation cycle.

The structure also provides the benefit of extending the timeframe for you to decide on the fate of your current ERP, providing additional runway for you to undertake a more complete analysis of your ERP needs and perform the proper due diligence for that project.

Illustration of OneStream (CPM) Implementation Timeline with ERP Replacement
Figure 7: Illustration of OneStream (CPM) Implementation Timeline with ERP Replacement

Evaluation Factor 4: Investment

With any project, the actual investment (see Figure 8) should always be a significant consideration.  The dollar value of the investment, if great enough, can impact other corporate priorities.  Also, as the saying goes, “the larger the investment, the greater the risk.”

Considerations to Evaluate Investment
Figure 8: Considerations to Evaluate Investment

Conclusion

Modernizing aging transactional ERP systems and EPM solutions are important and strategic projects that can support finance transformation.  And there’s no question that a substantial investment of time and resources is required to upgrade to SAP S/4 for Finance Transformation.

So which do you invest in first – the ERP systems that run the business, or the EPM solutions that help you manage the business?

If you’re a Finance team with immediate needs to drive agility across planning, financial close and other key processes, you must consider the business value of accelerating the Finance Transformation by conquering the complexity of your EPM processes before you embark on an ERP upgrade.  You may even find that the value you create will fund your ERP transformation when the time is right.

Learn More

To learn more about why SAP customers are moving to OneStream, read our whitepaper here.

Over my 20+ year career within the corporate performance management (CPM) industry, I’ve talked to hundreds of SAP customers about their Finance Transformations. And most Finance users reported facing a pretty common challenge: How can Finance leaders drive performance if they’re consumed with the complexities of managing multiple applications in the SAP enterprise performance management (EPM) ecosystem?

Here’s my take. Fragmented EPM solutions add risk, cost and complexity to financial processes (e.g., financial consolidation, planning, analytics and financial data quality). And if the purpose of Finance Transformation is to help organizations modernize and simplify processes, technology should reduce risk, not add more. In fact, I often suggest Finance leaders start their evaluations by asking a simple question – how can your organization take steps to reduce complexity?

(more…)

Is your organization feeling “stuck” with a legacy CPM application that’s not seeing any innovation and is planned for retirement in the next few years?  Reliance on legacy corporate performance management (CPM) products that are going off support often create an opportunity for Finance teams to consider alternatives to their legacy vendor and create new opportunities for Finance transformation.

(more…)

Modernizing finance across a global organization requires a high amount of focus on unifying the data. To create the most effective financial consolidation and reporting process, you must bridge the gap between ERPs, various operational systems, and corporate performance management (CPM) software. Increasingly more organizations with fragmented ERP systems are taking the leap from fragmented spreadsheets and legacy CPM products to a unified CPM platform that supports faster, more informed decision-making. Read on to discover how a global supplier of chemical and water treatments discovered the path to modern finance with OneStream Cloud.

(more…)

Demo Sign Up