Oracle CPQ is a cloud-based application that helps sellers configure the right mix of products or services and create accurate, professional quotes to quickly meet their customers’ pricing needs.
$240
per month per user
PandaDoc
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
PandaDoc headquartered in San Francisco offers their eponymous electronic signature platform for sales teams, containing sales proposal automation and CPQ (configure, price, quote) features, and integration with CRMs.
$35
per month per seat
Pricing
Oracle CPQ
PandaDoc
Editions & Modules
CPQ Pricing
$240.00
per month per user
Starter
$35
per month per seat
Business
$65
per month per seat
Enterprise
Contact Sales
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Oracle CPQ
PandaDoc
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
PandaDoc offers a free eSign plan and 3 paid packages for eSigning and document automation. All plans include unlimited documents and eSignatures. Evaluations start with a free 14-day trial. Up to a 46% discount for annual pricing.
Oracle CPQ is more flexible and user-friendly, and it has the necessary features, which helps us with long term maintenance for our product configuration rules.
The other tools were fine, but they could not stack up against the power of Oracle CPQ (formerly BigMachines). Hands down Oracle CPQ blew everyone else out of the water.
We debated a few different options, including a home-grown custom program, uCommerce, and just using only Oracle Commerce Cloud. Since we had already decided to use Oracle Commerce Cloud over uCommerce, the integrations available between OCC, Oracle's ERP system, and Oracle …
Oracle engagement is ahead. They are active in the development of the tool and provide great support after implementation. They also listen to their customers and offer opportunities to feedback and provide input through activities like the customer advisory board forum.
I'm not very familiar with CPQ alternatives but Oracle (BigMachines) is one of if not the best and largest players in the market. BigMachines founders actually created another alternative after their non-compete agreements ended with Oracle who they sold to. I'm sure their …
Our primary concern was a product configurator. Our product configurations and rules are complex and we felt that Oracle CPQ Cloud was best able to demonstrate that they could handle our complex rules. Further, we are an Oracle EBS shop and look forward to an easier time …
I don't remember exactly which other products I tested, but it eventually came down to pricing and ease of use vs the other solutions. We were in a situation where we needed a budget-conscious solution that wouldn't break the bank. All the other products we tested were way …
BigMachines is very customizable to support complex product configurations and [has the] ability to support price books, as we use different marketplace prices for the same product (SKU) seamless Salesforce integration, which is very good and it's easy to export and import data …
I haven't explored other CPQ vendor options. But I've heard that Selectica's Salesforce/CRM integration capabilities make the software worth exploring.
Apttus, Evapt and some other Salesforce.com add-ons. We felt other solutions could not handle complex order outputs. They had simplistic printer friendlies – could not do split splinter friendlies. Their configuration engines lacked the ability to support complex business rules …
Our shortlist beyond Big Machines was:
1) Apptus – Their biggest downfall was their lack of responsiveness in the sales cycle. It made us very nervous about their ability to be responsive post sale.
2) Using the Salesforce.com Opportunity Products feature. Salesforce.com native …
I find it easier to automate and create templates in PandaDoc. Specifically the templates. Also, connecting through API is easier (our IT team says so, I'm not qualified to evaluate that). Pricing is also something important, when we acquired PandaDoc it was cheaper so we were …
PandaDoc is equal to DocuSign in every significant way except for its level of adoption; however, the pricing of PandaDoc is so much better that it's clearly the best choice for our firm.
We used Dropbox back when it was still HelloSign. At the time, new templates were very hard to create. We had to upload a PDF and then add the fields from there. With PandaDoc, we are able to drag and drop the text, images, logos, and fields we need easily. This has saved our …
PandaDoc and DocuSign are very similar in functionality and design, but I prefer to use PandaDoc's interface. It is so easy to use and I prefer PandaDoc's interface and UI. It feels a little cleaner and a little more professional to me when compared with DocuSign's interface …
To be able to block certain fields within templates and contracts, so that the commercial team can negotiate the rest and adapt them but cannot change those purely legal clauses that should not be negotiated or changed without the approval of the legal department. I also find …
We briefly used Proposify, and it had some nice options for creating more ascetically pleasing proposals and contracts. However, it was far more time-consuming, and any gain in asceticism did not outweigh the significant loss in efficiency, simplicity, and reliability of using …
Conga was difficult to build template contracts and not as simple to set up templates, etc., for our sales contracts as Pandadoc has been (simple drag-and-drop in Pandadoc). The automation and integration between our Salesforce and Conga accounts were not working correctly, so …
We chose PandaDoc for its ease of use and tools that allow a professional feel. The convenience for our clients to review and sign agreements also helped us make the decision to go with PandaDoc.
We looked at DocuSign before PandaDocs, and while they are a well-known and good product, we felt their basic content was lacking compared to PandaDoc. We felt we got more bang for our buck, and the navigation seemed better. Plus, we get a dedicated rep with PandaDoc.
We still use Quickbooks for invoicing but are looking into other products that integrate with PD better than Quickbooks. That way we can quote and invoice from PD.
I think CPQ had worked so well for our company because of the widespread nature of our associates and tracking orders that were being placed in multiple time zones. My team specifically needed a way of analyzing these orders to track our progress in real time and sort out any supply orders before they became an issue. If you are in a centralized location with a smaller team then this may not yield much use to you.
As an alternative to other electronic signature mechanisms, I can't recommend PandaDoc more highly. It works, plain and simple. It is less costly - by a lot - than most alternatives, stores signed documents online for easy access, is simple to use by both our staff and our clients, and makes our lives far easier.
Advanced coding for some areas in config and pricing engine are written in BML. This Java-like code may be a bit tricky for someone trying to write very advanced configuration rules or advanced pricing.
The flagship system needs to have an easier way to enter in pricing. In the BMX version, pricing is handled through multiple matricies, but in the flagship it is compiled into one ugly rule.
Customization. Other software comes with tools to help customize the "look and feel" quickly. To get a re-vamped look on the flagship product, you'll need a CSS expert.
So far it is all good with BigMachines, looking for new features since Oracle acquisition has created a lot of expectations. We have outlined our limitations (out of box functionality) in our periodic customer successor advice meetings for a while, hope we get a resolution soon. Also, the BigMachines user license fee has increased a lot in the last three years.
We have been using it for a few years now and find it vital to getting our bids out quickly and accurately to our customers. We can get a request for information from a customer and once we have their basic parameters create a professional bid in minutes. It's actually usually harder to find out what the customer wants than to use PandaDoc and create a document with it
While they have a decent administrator interface (relative to other apps), the part that is unintuitive is the printer friendly output. I view this is as the meat and potatoes. They are very constrained on these abilities. To make a font change is really cumbersome. There is no content management protocol to protocol. This kills us.
Once you get the hang of it, it's very easy to use. There can be a slightly steep learning curve to get fully in on the system. The new editor v2 has really improved usability and allows us to collaborate on documents simultaneously. Once the templates and library items are set up, a new document, whether it be a sales or HR document, takes very little time to complete.
It depends upon the day however there are so many failure points with online services, including our internet service, that this is probably closer to 9 with the latest version
As I mentioned earlier - performance is near perfect as I can create, send, adjust my documents. I love the tracking feature as well as I can tell when my documents have been seen and by whom. The only issue I have run into is with saving and formatting - occasionally the file document does not save with the newly assigned name or the content of the document does not stay formatted nicely.
Some specific support personal was good and fixed some problems fast using proper solutions. But when one of them went to sleep when we had critical issues and they do unreported commits to our production environment which caused issues and they were hiding it?? you can not give more than a two (maybe even that is too much). They also failed to add a feature for us which also bring the grade down.
Recently I could not upload a pdf to a contract - support was very responsive and easy to work with. They got back to me the next day with an apparent fix - however when I opened the document nothing had changed. I then could not respond to the rep who was helping me because it was a "no-reply address", the problem still has not been solved and we had to make alternate arrangements to get this to the client. Never had it happen before and was only with this one contract.
They have pretty good training. Our business analysts have been able to go to entry and advanced level training. They have a train the trainer model. Our business analyst attended training, then trained the rest of our staff.
Like with any implementation go into it with a clear and realistic plan for getting the implementation completed and it will go much smoother. BigMachines has a clear process and an excellent staff fort getting an implementation completed we just needed to follow more of it instead of creating our own roadblocks
We debated a few different options, including a home-grown custom program, uCommerce, and just using only Oracle Commerce Cloud. Since we had already decided to use Oracle Commerce Cloud over uCommerce, the integrations available between OCC, Oracle's ERP system, and Oracle CPQ definitely seemed like the easiest option with the greatest benefits. However, the cost/benefit of Oracle CPQ was more apparent when we were ready to launch more complex configurations across all of our product groups.
PandaDoc is a more polished, professional, and 'legitimate' software site than other solutions, since PandaDoc really specializes in creating professional proposals, quotes and invoices. The eSignature capacity and pricing table capacity embedded in the documents as well as fillable fields, pre-made, customizable and reusable templates also make PandaDoc stand out.
Sales Operations or IT would have a better understanding of the license user costs and ROI. I do know that Sales has experienced frustrations in the the lead gen-to-close process and have experienced delays with some deals. In other instances, the software has worked fine. I would love to see an analysis on how our lead-conversion rate, sales cycles, and proposal volume stacks up.