We performed a comparison between SAP BusinessObjects GRC and Workiva Wdesk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have enterprise clients for the product."
"Initial setup was straightforward. It took maybe one week."
"The best features are the scalability and flexibility to implement applications on top of the BW."
"The tool helps create reports for projects, including the creation of any ad-hoc reports"
"It is wonderful from the control perspective. The GRC tools help you in knowing what are the risk controls, how to mitigate risks, and how to ensure that there are no conflicts between the roles. From the user perspective, you get to know what are the permission risks and access risks. You get a lot of useful information."
"It makes the compliance process more efficient and more effective."
"Workiva Wdesk has a flow diagram that is standardized, making it easy for people to file documents on ECDAs, which are in HTML format."
"It helps you to maintain a backup of your data, including the connectivity with the tables, which provides a user-friendly way to handle and access your files."
"Workiva Wdesk is pretty good in terms of getting the data from the system, automating the reporting schedules...It has a very good integration with ERP tools."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to easily upload and update financial results, creating a dynamic data sheet."
"The collaboration within the platform is valuable."
"We cannot actively log in to the system. It should also improve support."
"An additional feature I would like to see is the option to add wait time and integrate sources in wait time."
"Technical support could be better and faster."
"I think the old system is better than the new one. From an improvement perspective, the tool needs to ensure that the new technologies it offers are better than the old ones."
"BusinessObjects is very dated. It is not that user-friendly. It should be made more user-friendly. In addition, if they could make predictive analytics an embedded part of it where people get to know what is there to offer, it would be great."
"The speed must be improved."
"At this point, I don't see a compelling reason to invest in Workiva. It may be necessary for compliance and controlling the version of SCC, but not everyone needs its high-end capabilities."
"With this product, it's more about the integrated data model where you can have a one-to-many/many-to-one relationship between your policies and processes, risks, and controls. They need to showcase how you can put those pieces together."
"One area where Workiva Wdesk could improve is by ensuring that its cloud-based system is fully compatible with the most current versions of PowerPoint and Excel."
"Regarding the solution, reporting has certain areas that can be considered for improvement."
"The most critical issue is the need to shift between uppercase and lowercase."
SAP BusinessObjects GRC is ranked 14th in GRC with 5 reviews while Workiva Wdesk is ranked 7th in GRC with 6 reviews. SAP BusinessObjects GRC is rated 7.6, while Workiva Wdesk is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of SAP BusinessObjects GRC writes "Provides a lot of useful information and helps in managing risks and controls". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Workiva Wdesk writes "A user-friendly tool useful for data consolidation and automating the reporting schedules". SAP BusinessObjects GRC is most compared with Greenlight Continuous Monitoring, RSA Archer, IBM OpenPages, Security Weaver and Oracle GRC Controls, whereas Workiva Wdesk is most compared with AuditBoard, Oracle Hyperion, OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer and LucaNet. See our SAP BusinessObjects GRC vs. Workiva Wdesk report.
See our list of best GRC vendors.
We monitor all GRC reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
