Cegid Reviews

Our primary use cases are related to payroll.

The layer of customization is very high and this has improved our organization.

The most valuable feature is you can customize every type of payroll calculation that you have.

The user interface could be improved and the maintenance is complex when it comes to upgrades.

I have been using Meta4 for the past fifteen years.

I have not had any real issues with stability.

I would say the solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and not complex.

The deployment process as well is useful and easy to set up or configure or build a report because the same as the payroll, you can build any type of report that you need because the database is an open database and you can get the feel of the database.  The process takes a day to install depending on the complexities of the calculations.

From a cost perspective, I think this is a well-balanced option.

Meta4 is great for very large organizations and I would rate Meta4 an eight out of ten.

• The flexibility of the salary processing engine allows for the full automation of complex business rules.
• All important data and configurations are time delimited. This allows for full history and for controlling when changes come into effect (either retroactively or programmed for the future).
• The "value assignation" model allows you to define values for different groups, and they will apply to all employee part of that group. For example, per location, per contract type, per company, per collective contract, etc.

If allowed us to fully automate payroll/salary processing for 6000 employees. This is now operated by only three people.

The vendor has replaced the e-Mind product with the PeopleNet product. This means that e-Mind is on life support and all R&D investment is going to PeopleNet. There is not direct migration path, so moving to PeopleNet is basically a reimplementation.

To put it bluntly, the e-Mind product is obsolete older technology, and
has no upgrade path for the new PeopleNet product.

I have been using this solution for about 20 years

The high flexibility of the payroll engine is a two-edged sword, as you can quickly build up complexity in your automation rules. Having experienced consultants in your implementation team can help a lot.

The version/build upgrades can be painful, since it is often required to run an update command on every client machine. If you can afford running the client as a remote desktop app, that can minimize the issue.

I found the system to be reliable and scalable. Scalability mostly depends on the database. For large installations, I have seen properly tuned Oracle databases perform well. The payroll engine is the fastest I have seen, even when compared with other products that don't support programmable salary rules, like Meta4.

The vendor's service team usually won't be much help for more complex issues.
But I've found experienced and competent consultants in the marketplace.

I'm moving to an HR solution implemented on MS Dynamics NAV, mainly because our current e-Mind installation is quite old, looks outdated, and its maintenance costs are growing.

The initial setup is not simple, since you usually want to implement your business automation rules, leveraging the product capabilities. You need an implementation project and proper project management.

I've been an implementation consultant for about 15 years. I have been an employee of a company using e-Mind for about five years. I recommend using a team of experienced consultants, independent from the vendor. In my experience, the vendor project implementation capabilities are sub-par.

You will probably see Meta4 PeopleNet, not e-Mind, which is the actively maintained product. But it is an evolution of e-Mind, and most of what I've said also applies.

PeopleNet brings many more features working out-of-the-box, so odds are that you can deploy it without much customization.

If you really need customizations, the product is also a complex development platform. The consultant experience and the project management will be key for a successful implementation.

I have a wide variety of use cases because every kind of company and every type of payroll system has different ways of paying people. This solution provides a good way of paying people. We have about seven users in the company. I work as a senior consultant and we're a partner of Meta4.

The best feature of the solution is the payroll engine. Another good feature is that it's a tool that can be developed inside the existing tool. 

I think the areas of training and performance could be improved in the solution.

I've been using this product for 10 years. 

Stability of this solution is very good, it's a good product. 

In general, scalability is fine but sometimes the users are not very skilled at using the tool. It possibly requires more technical insight. 

The availability of technical support is very good.

I have used similar products in the past that have been local payroll providers. This solution has the advantage of being a tool that you can develop inside the same tool. 

Initial setup can be quite complex. 

Our partner company helped us with deployment. Depending on what is being deployed, it can take three or four people to implement. 

There is no fixed cost, the price depends on the number of employees you want to manage in the solution. In general, if you use the system for many users, the solution becomes cheaper.

This is a good product, but if you want to design new developments, you have to take that into account because it's not that easy. It is also important to sort out your internal processes before starting to use a tool like this.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.

The two main features I use and appreciate are:

• Reporting (although it doesn't always work as intended)
• Candidate tracking for our requirements

Not at this time.

I would like to see:

• More robust reporting
• Changes to fields (they should be simpler)
• A more easily customizable solution

I have used TalentSoft for one year.

Recently, support has been excellent.

Prior to 2017, my team either had the wrong or ineffective service follow-up or they often looked for workarounds outside the system.

This has changed since we've better connected with the online service desk.

I'm not sure what we used before. We also track data in Excel worksheets for easy tracking.

Make sure to think about year-end reporting and important data during the setup so changes won't be necessary later.

We use the on-premises version for our organizational structures.

Performance appraisal might be the most valuable feature for us.

The HR portal, training model, and development career model could all use improvement. Stability and scalability should be improved as well.

I would like table and mobile features to be released, but I believe it might already be there. We just don't have that version yet.

From zero to five I would give it a three for stability. It could also be improved.

The scalability should be improved. 

All the employees in our company use this solution.

Their technical support is not so good.

The initial setup was complex.

We used Meta4 directly to do our deployment.

Take care when constructing your company, to make sure you have a stable implementation. Also, upgrade every month. Otherwise, your version will be old and it will give you problems.

I would rate this solution as a six out of ten.