PerformancePoint Planning vs. FRx Forecaster

As the company I work for is also a Dynamics GP partner with Microsoft, one of the questions I get a lot is how does PerformancePoint Planning compare to FRx Forecaster.  In a nutshell, here is how I explain the differences:

FRx Forecaster is more of an out-of-the-box solution.  Since you are working within a predefined  budgeting/forecasting framework you can deploy finalized solutions within a matter of weeks — as long as your models can fit within the framework.  It is a more mature product and therefore has some nice features (albeit not life or death) that PerformancePoint Server Planning v1.0 currently lacks.

PerformancePoint Server Planning is a blank slate when you begin and therefore can be whatever you like — the sky is the limit.  It ultimately has more power and more flexibility than FRx Forecaster, but that equates to longer deployment times and greater implementation costs.   FRx Forecaster is being phased out and will eventually disappear while PerformancePoint Server is the go-forward solution from Microsoft.  PerformancePoint Server also has the advantage of providing the additional functionality of Management Reporter and Monitoring & Analytics whereas FRx Forecaster is only budgeting/forecasting.

After giving the synopsis above I am usually asked for more details.  Myself and a co-worker (thanks Grantley) have come up with a quick “cheat sheet” of the differences.  Now please take each of these with a grain of salt as any good solution provider, who really knows either of the applications, can usually come up with ways to get around any limitation found in the system.   The table below compares the two:

Item	FRx Forecaster	PerformancePoint
Out-of-the-Box Solution	Yes	No
Model Types Supported	Four (4) total types that have been preconfigured to handle Expenses, Revenue, CapEx & HR (one of each)	Unlimited types can be created and they can be whatever you can dream, but no models are provided out-of-the-box
Number of Models Supported	Four (4) models per company (as detailed above) with unlimited companies supported	Unlimited, but no models are provided out-of-the-box
Supports Linked Models	Yes, but only within the four model type structure above	Yes
Supports Allocation Models	Yes	Yes
Supports Multiple Currencies	Yes	Yes
Number of Dimensions	Eleven (11) maximum across all models and companies with ten (10) being user definable and one (1) needed to handle time	Unlimited
End User Interface	Web interface or FRx Forecaster client	Excel 2003 or Excel 2007
Use Excel Formulas / Functions During Data Entry	No	Yes
Supports Spreading / Calendarization of Values	Yes and it does it quite well	No, but back-end PEL rules or Excel functionality can be implemented to assist the user
Approval Workflows	Yes	Yes
Workflow Statuses	Unlimited and configurable	Fixed
Workflow Alerts via Email	Yes	Yes
Audit History by Cell	Yes and available from within the user interface	Available, but requires creation of custom reports that are run separately
Copying of Budget Versions	Yes and is a built-in function	Yes, but requires development of custom PEL rules
Data Storage Structure	SQL Server table with all data for all models in a single table	SQL Analysis Services and SQL Server tables with each model having a unique cube and series of tables
Reporting Tool(s)	Reporting is limited as the tool is geared towards budget capture and approval. FRx Financial Report Writer can be utilized	PerformancePoint Excel Add-In, Excel pivot tables, Management Reporter, SQL Reporting Services, PerformancePoint M&A components
Integration to/from Other Data Sources	Limited and primarily GL level data only	Unlimited and can include both dimension members and fact data
M&A Components Available	None as FRx Forecaster is a budgeting / forecasting solution only	Yes and therefore provides a complete performance management suite
Short Term Solution (<3 Years)	Yes	Yes
Long Term Solution (3+ Years)	No as it is being phased out in favor of PerformancePoint	Yes
Deployment Ease/Speed (Scale 1 – 10)	8 out of 10 as working within a set framework means quicker deployment	5 out of 10 as you can create whatever you like, but you are starting with a blank canvas
Deployment Power/Potential (Scale 1 – 10)	5 out of 10 as you are forced to work within the existing framework that has been pre-developed for you	7 out of 10 since the product is still at v1.0 and lacks some features, this should be a 9 after v2.0 is available

 

Remember that the items above are my take on the two when compared side by side and not the official Microsoft take on the two products.  I hope people find this is helpful if deciding between the two.