SAP HANA Reviews

We use SAP HANA as the source of SAP or SAP S/4HANA. We don't have a BW system in between, so we assess data from SAP HANA DB, and we use HANA data models in the HANA database and consume those into SAP.

The feature I found most valuable in SAP HANA is modeling. I also like that the solution has good integration and you can integrate it with any system, even third-party systems.

Ease of use could be improved in SAP HANA. I like SAP because SAP solutions can be used by anyone, which means even laymen can start working on SAP tools, but in SAP HANA modeling, you'll need to know some other technologies and sequel scripting, and you need a separate skillset, so if you don't have the skillset, you won't be able to work on SAP HANA. Making SAP HANA low-code would make it even better.

I've been using SAP HANA for two years.

SAP HANA is a stable solution.

SAP HANA is a scalable solution.

I find the technical support for SAP HANA pretty good because if you have any issues, the team responds to you very quickly.

The initial setup for SAP HANA was straightforward. I don't have information on how long it took to deploy the solution because I wasn't in charge of the deployment.

I have no information on SAP HANA licensing costs.

More than three hundred people use SAP HANA within my organization.

At the moment, there's no plan to increase usage for SAP HANA.

My company does system patching every quarter, so there's no issue with maintaining the solution.

I would recommend SAP HANA to others who want to start using it.

My rating for the solution is eight out of ten.

We use SAP HANA on a daily basis for end-to-end business processing. Also, we use it for maintenance management and appointing processes.

I like the integration process. Also, the data is trusted by our management, and we use the data from transactions for analysis.

The bid process needs to be improved.

I've been using this solution for about three years.

Technical support is provided by our SAP HANA partner, and I would rate it at eight out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup at nine on a scale from one to ten with one being difficult and ten being easy.

The deployment took six and a half years.

The cost of SAP HANA is high, and I would rate the price at eight out of ten.

I would recommend SAP HANA and rate it at eight out of ten.

I've recently left the company where we were using SAP HANA. Our use case was for replication so that end users could use dashboard reports. I'm a senior manager.

It's great that the analytics are fast. I had previously worked on BW and when the same workloads were run on HANA, it was much quicker. 

We had some issues where the data was not replicating and also problems with the target when some records didn't sync up. Even though we worked on the problem together with SAP, and they were very helpful, it took some time to resolve.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

I don't think best practices were followed with the initial setup so we had frequent issues with the CPU utilization and we'd have to restart the system. We later implemented some threshold-related parameters on the VM which solved the problems we were having. It was stable after that. 

The solution is definitely scalable, we had around 1,000 users. 

Customer service was very supportive. When needed, we had daily calls with SAP which was great. They also worked with us to address our major issue and were accessible daily by phone. 

Positive

The initial setup is quite straightforward. It can be done in a couple of modes; command line or the graphical interface. There are five or six components that get installed and deployment takes a maximum of an hour. It doesn't require much manpower. 

We've seen an ROI in terms of the speed with which reports come through. 

I would recommend this solution. The HANA database provided a lot of improvement in terms of speed, agility and efficiency.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We use this solution to custom build features. We are customers of SAP HANA and I'm a solutions manager working for a retail company in Finland. 

The product handles high volumes very well and provides good integration. HANA has great databases and we're able to have a lot of custom-built features. I think this is the best solution for us given our high file volumes.

The SAP ERP processes are quite complex for us and it's a challenge. I don't like the presentation layer tools on the analytics side, it's too complex. I'd like to see a consistent analytic system as those tools and their capabilities are not easy to select. An alternative could be for them to offer the option of access to other solutions.

I think the solution is relatively stable but in some cases, it can depend on the service provider and their capabilities. We handle about 40 promoters, all in Finland and dealing with high volumes. Our market set is very high here.

I think it is highly scalable but it comes at a financial cost. We currently have around 1,000 users. 

We use the support when we need it but we have quite good capabilities ourselves. If we're having some challenges then it can take time to have them resolved or to find the root cause of the problem. We've had some ongoing challenges that have taken quite a while to resolve. 

If you have some experience, the initial setup is quite easy. 

We are always discussing ways to optimize memory usage and hence our licensing costs. The solution is quite expensive but we also get a lot of value-added because of the high level of integration. I think it's worth the money but it's a fine balance. 

I would recommend SAP HANA solution for ERP but not necessarily for analytics. There is no other solution that can provide the value added that we get from SAP, despite the challenges. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10.

We are primarily using the solution for the BW system of SAP. We also use the legacy reporting, which is very good.

The solution is quite fast.

We hoped to move all our BI systems to work with HANA, unfortunately, there are a lot of performance issues, even after remodeling the BW models.

The memory is the solution's most valuable feature. It's the main feature of HANA. Others are still the regular IT databases that are on storage and are therefore much slower than HANA. The solution is quite fast.

Unlike other databases, it lacks management features that legacy databases like Oracle or SQL servers have. They need to make the solution easier to manage and offer tools that make management more effective. A lot of things you have on traditional databases you have to develop into HANA.

I've been using the solution for about 3 years

The solution is less stable than traditional databases. We have encountered several cases when the database just flows. For some reason, that database took a lot of memory, and when we opened a case with SAP, we had to send a lot of logs, which did nothing because at the end, they couldn't find the root cause for this issue. This happened in several cases. We had production down and that's not acceptable for our business.

The solution is very scalable. We have about 10,000 users.

Each of those is not connecting to the database per se, but we are using HANA to take all the data and a lot of users. Several other software applications are also connecting to it.

Technical support is okay, but not great. It seems like there are a lot of SAP support packages that are coming out and lots of versions. For me, this indicates that the product is not quite ready or stable enough.

We've contacted technical support in the past and did not get good results. Eventually, we just created some parameters that we have configured into the system. We solved the problem by ourselves by creating a workaround that avoided the problem. SAP never gave us a straight answer about what we should do in our case.

The initial setup was quite complicated. We had to do a migration, so it wasn't a fresh installation. We had Oracle as our legacy system and had to move everything over to HANA. We had to do half a year of testing and had to do several cycles of tests and migrations before deploying. Once that was done, we deployed over a weekend.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd advise others to wait until the software will be much more stable before implementing it.

I'd rate it eight out of ten. If it was more stable and more manageable, I'd rate it higher. If people could have the ability to do things on their own within the solution, to read the software logs on their own, and get the root cause of any problem, and not just send it to the support, it would be much better.

The memory capabilities are great.

The performance is very, very good. It's one of the best aspects of the solution.

I've used Oracle for ten years, and yet, I find SAP better than Oracle. Oracle is more cost-based.

Oracle tends to have better features than SAP HANA. They should work to add the kinds of features clients expect from Oracle.

With Oracle, you can install their cloud and that enables you to see more of the database and multiple accounts. This is better than what SAP has on offer.

SAP could really work on its monitoring capabilities.

There's data aging that needs to be dealt with on the solution. It's not ideal. You might have a lot of raw data and aging can really affect it.

It would be help if the solution had a graph database. They're lacking that right now.

There's an issue in the partition. When you record more than two million records, partitioning does not work well. In Oracle it's easy. SAP must resolve this issue in order to be more competitive with Oracle.

I've been using the solution for about five years at this point. It's been about half a decade.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. We don't have any problems in that area.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. It wasn't that good. Sometimes the information we received from them wasn't accurate. It's a difficult solution. I would say, to be fair, that their support is better than Oracle's.

In the case of Oracle, I had an issue once with Oracle GoldenGate. It took two weeks to resolve the issue. That's far too long. SAP is much more responsive. It's never taken two weeks to resolve anything.

We also used Oracle. We find SAP to be very fast. It's much faster than Oracle.

The initial setup was five years ago, so it's been a while. However, I do recall it being straightforward. We typically install a version on Linux. While it can be difficult, at the moment, it's pretty good. Things have changed a bit, and they've improved the setup a bit. It's not really that unsimilar to Microsoft's SQL server.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with SAP.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

We use an on-premises version and e have a private cloud in our company.

I'd recommend the solution. If you have, for example, a huge project that's kind of a unique, scalable database I recommend SAP HANA for it. It's easy to use and handles more RAM.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use SAP HANA for Master Data Governance.

The solution needs to work on its performance and make it faster.

I have been working with the solution for four years.

I am satisfied with the tool’s stability.

I would rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten. Our company has four users for the solution.

The solution’s tech support is good.

Positive

The setup is straightforward. The deployment took around six months to complete.

The tool’s subscription is yearly.

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. You can use the solution if it meets your requirements.

We are currently using the solution for planning, sourcing, and ordering from a contract perspective.

We have found that the Fiori Apps are particularly good.

I would like to see improvement on the feedback from the road-map; it is currently extremely hard to get insight in this area.

I have been using this solution for four years.

The stability of this solution is extremely good.

We have found it to be extremely scalable.

The initial setup was complex, but this was due to the nature of the current project which is large and complex. However, for smaller projects, it has been more straightforward.

The implementation was carried out in-house, and we also implement the solution for our customers.

The price of licensing is dependent on the size of the project, however, we have found that there is scope to negotiate the cost.

If the solution is implemented on-premises there may be some extra costs for hosting etc.

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