Enterprise Software TCO Calculator – JDA Demand Management

How it Works

Fill out the form below for a your customized TCO calculation, as well as each of the supporting cost components that make up the TCO. The form does not have a “beginning or end.” The form is constantly calculating, so feel free to make constant changes and the application will auto-adjust.


  • Vendor Name: JDA (See for Vendor Rating)
  • Software Category: Demand Planning
  • Company Headquarters: 14400 N. 87th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260-3649
  • Site: https://www.jda.com
  • Contact number 480.308.3000
  • Delivery Mechanism: OnPremises

Finished With Your Analysis?

Once complete, goto this link to see other analytical products for JDA.

Project Planning Package – JDA Demand Management

How it Works

Fill out the form below for a your project planning estimate. The form does not have a “beginning or end.” The form is constantly calculating, so feel free to make constant changes and the application will auto-adjust.


  • Vendor Name: JDA (See for Vendor Rating)
  • Software Category: Demand Planning
  • Company Headquarters: 14400 N. 87th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260-3649
  • Site: https://www.jda.com
  • Contact number 480.308.3000
  • Delivery Mechanism: OnPremises

Finished With Your Analysis?

Once complete, goto this link to see other analytical products for JDA.

MUFI Rating & Risk – JDA Demand Management

MUFI Rating & Risk – JDA Demand Management

MUFI: Maintainability, Usability, Functionality, Implement ability

Vendor: JDA (Select For Vendor Profile)


JDA owns some of the most previously prominent supply chain planning companies in Manugistics and i2 Technologies. Both were such essential leaders in the supply chain planning space that it is a fantastic turn of events that both companies were united – and at low purchase priced – under JDA. This changed JDA as their heritage is in retail software. At some point, they decided to switch to being a software conglomerate.  The purchase of two software vendors with identical footprints (although strong in different areas) always seemed to indicate that JDA was following the Computer Associates/now Oracle model of buying software for its customers and their support contracts. Experience in analyzing JDA supports the fact that this is the company’s strategy.

Application Detail

JDA Demand Management (DM), their forecasting application was acquired from the Manugistics acquisition. Manugistics forecasting application was for years one of the best applications that Manugistics had. When companies that switched way from Manugistics demand planning to trendier applications like SAP DP end up wishing they had not. Therefore, even though it has not been developed much by JDA since the acquisition, it is still a competitive application.

JDA has an excellent classification tool that tells the user what percentage of the products would optimally go out on which type of model.

JDA Demand Classification

In JDA’s DM Classification Manager, it is clear that with this data, the majority of the product database goes out on the continuous non-seasonal method. What is shown in the graphic above are not models because within each technique are multiple models which contain specific configuration details? For instance, a moving average is a method; however, a three-period moving average is a particular model.

JDA Time Weighing

Above, the time weighting factor can be seen. Time weighing can reduce the influence of older demand history. While this is a very convenient way of essentially performing historical removal, one still has to determine whether and how much history should be removed. Once known, this setting in JDA DM can help implement the historical removal or historical time weighing.

Lifecycle Planning in JDA Demand Management

Lifecycle planning is managed very individually concerning dates in JDA Demand Management. The dates include:

  • History Start Date: The earliest demand history date that the system uses in producing a forecast.
  • Demand Post Date: Date up to which demand has been posted (DFU: DmdPostDate). The period into which the demand post date falls is the first forecast period. (see footnote for explanation)
  • Effective Date: The date when the system begins producing forecasts
  • Discontinue Date: The date after which the systems stops producing forecasts

The user can specify all of these dates very quickly in the JDA interface. These dates, shown in the screenshot below, are then applied at the product level.

JDA Discontinue Date

Using these dates, JDA Demand Management can easily control the essential lifecycle dates for a product. The dates can be applied to the user interface by a planner or can be adjusted for a large number of products by performing a upload, with the dates adjusted as desired, to the JDA Demand Management application database.

Copying Demand History Between Like Products

One way of performing lifecycle planning is by copying one product’s demand history over to another product. This is particularly useful during a new product introduction, where a company believes there to be a high degree of similarity between the new product and an existing product. Copying demand is an alternative to providing a product with uplift commensurate with how another product performed. While a company can use a variety of approaches to predict the demand of a new product, one cannot do much better than to find a like product that has already been introduced and has a demand history.

JDA Demand Management provides a comfortable and detailed way to copy the demand history as well as other factors such as the tuning parameters, forecasting method, etc.

JDA Copy Demand History

The ability to mix and match different features of a product in the forecasting system, as seen above, makes JDA’s functionality quite flexible. Notice also that the demand history can be copied for specific portions of the overall demand history. Secondly, there is a great deal of flexibility regarding what can be reproduced as the lower settings demonstrate. I consider this type of flexibility concerning lifecycle planning a best practice design.

JDA DM is a good choice for companies that are looking for very detailed control over the application of changes to the forecast and demanding history. Although little developed since the JDA acquisition it is still a competitive application. DM has been a leading forecasting application since before the JDA acquisition. It has a very good word of mouth among people that have used it, and many of its approaches have stood the test of time. Some of the ways that DM works are unique in the marketplace and many of the features do not become apparent until one has extended use. DM often seems to have exactly the type of functionality that many experience forecasting people would have put into an application if they had a chance to develop their forecasting application – and an indication that DM was designed by individuals with a great deal of practical forecasting experience.

MUFI Scores

All scores out of a possible 10.

Vendor and Application Risk

JDA DM has a long history of implementations behind it. The application is dated, but its original design was so good that is continues to be a good choice. The main risk issue with JDA DM is related to getting users to access the deep functionality of the application. DM provides precise control over manual changes, substitution, and many other functions. The functionality is robust, but there is a lot of it, and this means the application has a relatively high training load.

Likelihood of Implementation Success

This accounts for both the application and vendor-specific risk. In our formula, the total implementation risk is application + vendor + buyer risk. The buyer specific risk could increase or decrease this overall likelihood and adjust the values that you see below.

Risk Definition

See this link for more on our categorizations of risk. We also offer a Buyer Specific Risk Estimation as a service for those that want a comprehensive analysis.

Finished With Your Analysis?

To go back to the Software Selection Package page for the Demand Planning software category. Or go to this link to see other analytical products for JDA Demand Management.


Brightwork Forecast Explorer for Error Calculation

Improving Your Forecast Error Management

Did you know that most companies don’t know what their forecast error is? If a company knows an error percentage but not the interval or the aggregation level measured, that means they don’t know. Most forecasting applications make getting a weighted forecast error extremely difficult. That is why we developed a SaaS application that allows anyone to find out their forecast error with a simple file upload.

The Brightwork Forecast Explorer is free to use in the beginning. See by clicking the image below:

Software Selection Book


Enterprise Software Selection: How to Pinpoint the Perfect Software Solution Using Multiple Sources of Information

What the Book Covers

Essential reading for success in your next software selection and implementation.

Software selection is the most important task in a software implementation project, as it is your best (if not only) opportunity to make sure that the right software—the software that matches the business requirements—is being implemented. Choosing the software that is the best fit clears the way for a successful implementation, yet software selection is often fraught with issues and many companies do not end up with the best software for their needs. However, the process can be greatly simplified by addressing the information sources that influence software selection. This book can be used for any enterprise software selection, including ERP software selection.

This book is a how-to guide for improving the software selection process and is formulated around the idea that—much like purchasing decisions for consumer products—the end user and those with the domain expertise must be included. In addition to providing hints for refining the software selection process, this book delves into the often-overlooked topic of how consulting and IT analyst firms influence the purchasing decision, and gives the reader an insider’s understanding of the enterprise software market.

This book is connected to several other SCM Focus Press books including Enterprise Software TCO and The Real Story Behind ERP.

By reading this book you will:

  • Learn how to apply a scientific approach to the software selection process.
  • Interpret vendor-supplied information to your best advantage. This is generally left out of books on software selection. However, consulting companies and IT analysts like Gartner have very specific biases. Gartner is paid directly by software vendors — a fact they make every attempt not to disclose while consulting companies only recommend software for vendors that give them the consulting business. Consulting companies all have an enormous financial bias that prevents them from offering honest advice — and this is part of their business model.
  • Understand what motivates a software vendor.
  • Learn how the institutional structure and biases of consulting firms affect the advice they give you, and understand how to properly interpret information from consulting companies.
  • Make vendor demos work to your benefit.
  • Know the right questions to ask on topics such as integration with existing software, cloud versus on-premise vendors, and client references.
  • Differentiate what is important to know about software for improved “implement-ability” versus what the vendor thinks is important for improved “sell-ability.”
  • Better manage your software selection projects to ensure smoother implementations.

Buy Now


  • Chapter 1: Introduction to Software Selection
  • Chapter 2: Understanding the Enterprise Software Market
  • Chapter 3: Software Sell-ability versus Implement-ability
  • Chapter 4: How to Use Consulting Advice on Software Selection
  • Chapter 5: How to Use the Reports of Analyst Firms Like Gartner
  • Chapter 6: How to Use Information Provided by Vendors
  • Chapter 7: How to Manage the Software Selection Process

Demand Post Date refers to the last date that demand was posted to the system.  It separates out the “history” from the “forecast” and serves as the basis for defining the first forecast period.  For example, if I am forecasting in weekly buckets on a Sunday start, and my demand post date is set to Feb 5, 2012, this date represents that the last posted history was on Feb. 5, 2012, encapsulating the sales from the prior week.  Therefore, the first bucket of the future forecast is for the week of February 5, 2012. – Paula Natoli, JDA

Honest Vendor Ratings – JDA


JDA began their life in Canada, and in the retail software business before relocating to Phoenix, AZ in the 1980’s and are still one of the few software companies based in Arizona.

JDA has a viewpoint that they have the best software in the marketplace, and the rest of their customer base needs to wake up to this fact. For the application categories we analyze, our experience does not match JDA’s self-perception. I2 Technology, Manugistics, and Red Prairie were market leaders (actually i2 Technologies, Manugistics also made up a lot of things along the way), but companies that make it a primary focus to acquiring other software vendors are never in our experience technologies or innovation leaders. JDA is also a software conglomerate, although less so than Oracle as its acquisitions are more within the single area of supply chain management. There is also the traditional concern about reinvestment into the acquired applications. The most common strategy for acquiring companies is to buy customers and invest minimally in improving the acquired software. JDA is continually taking shortcuts and low-quality pathways in order to maintain profit growth. JDA is moving in the direction of having all developing in India, and only sales and customer-facing consulting jobs in the US. That may sound great to Wall Street, but inevitably will cause a schism in the company as the people that “know” the products are not in the same country as where the clients are located.

Quality of Information Provided

JDA is a very sales oriented software vendor and the information they provide is of slightly below average reliability. This is the standard practice with all software vendors that focus on growth through acquisition, quality declines, and they become less desirable and far more political places to work. While far more sustainable in its origin, JDA has moved more to an Oracle sales culture.

Consulting and Support

JDA offers average slightly lower than average consulting and support, but because their solutions are generally not recommended or implemented by the major consulting companies they offer a decent value.

Internal Efficiency

JDA has a great deal of bureaucracy. Secondly, JDA is rapidly becoming primarily an Indian company – with just customer facing roles being domestically staffed. Our problem with predominantly Indian companies is that they are unstable. This has been proven over and over again with the flameout of i2 Technologies (the Enron of enterprise software) and companies like Infosys, Wipro, which have the feel of the disaster response after Katrina. (Although we do rate one Indian software company as very high potential in ERPNext because they are small and we think can buck the trend.). Certainly, a number of software vendors have Indian operations, but what JDA is doing is different in its scale, and one concern is that JDA is doing this to hide revenue weaknesses simply by reducing its costs. Customers a noticing the decline in support and the more complex and frustrating communication that are due to JDA’s job shifting to a low-cost region. Customers also note that the fact that fewer and fewer JDA resources actually live in the domestic country has not reduced the costs of JDA’s software or consulting.


JDA is a serial software acquisition firm with a low level of innovation. They acquire firms and gain the support business, release marketing information declaring how they will grow the solution – use the term synergy repeatedly, and then cut the development of the application. This is not the way to develop or maintain an innovative company.

Vendor Scores

Part of the Following Software Categories

Select the following link(s) if you have subscribed to the following analytical product(s).

Software Selection Package for Demand Planning

Software Category Analysis – Demand Planning


When forecasting applications were first developed external to the ERP system, a narrow spectrum of applications was developed for demand planning and these were primarily designed for the statistical forecasting process. However, statistical forecasting is only one of several forecasting processes, and over the years the variety of demand planning applications has increased significantly. Therefore, attempting to force all of a company’s forecasting needs through a single application is no longer necessary or desirable. The diagram below represents the various forecasting processes:

Major Forecasting Processes

A common mistake companies seem to make is trying to use statistical forecasting packages to manage the other forecasting processes. Part of the reason that companies do this is because both the major vendors (who tend to only offer statistical packages) and the major consulting companies incorrectly advise companies that statistical demand planning software can be used to manage non statistical process forecasting. This analysis package will primarily be focused on statistical forecasting applications, but where the application can branch out into other areas, we will point this out.

It is important to understand where demand planning fits among the different supply chain applications, as shown in the graphic below.

Common Supply Chain Application Categories Demand Planning

Demand planning one of the major categories of supply chain software. When companies implement an external supply chain planning module to be connected to their ERP system, they most often start with demand planning.

If you read most forecasting books they tend to focus very heavily on the mechanics of forecasting. They talk about forecasting methodologies (simple exponential smoothing, regression, etc.), however not enough get into the business process or how forecasts are used in real life. The first wave or generation of applications leveraged the ability to place not so sophisticated and quite sophisticated forecasting methods in software. These applications had high failure rates because they were generally not designed to be easily implemented or easily maintained. Applications in this category are what we refer to as first generation advanced planning products. A good marker of a first generation advanced planning forecasting application was if it expended most of the development effort in the application of complex methods and would often have a proprietary forecasting algorithm. During the period when first generation the prevailing wisdom was that the application mostly came down to how complex forecasting methods could be applied in an automated fashion. This period in software, which has been the dominant software development approach lead to some very bad habits. In fact, there little evidence that sophisticated mathematics can improve the forecast of difficult-to-forecast products, and this is a problem. Some studies do not show improvement from more advanced methods, but firstly the improvement is never very large, and secondly other studies come by later to contradict the original studies. In addition, complex methods should have to exceed a higher bar. Academics can apply complex methods in a laboratory environment over a few products far more easily than can be done by industry. This fact, along with the point that sophisticated methods are much more expensive for industry to implement than simple methods, is rarely mentioned. This point is made very well by J. Scott Armstrong:

Use simple methods unless a strong case can be made for complexity. One of the most enduring and useful conclusions from research on forecasting is that simple methods are generally as accurate as complex methods. Evidence relevant to the issue of simplicity comes from studies of judgment (Armstrong 1985), extrapolation (Armstrong 1984, Makridakis et al. 1982, and Schnaars 1984), and econometric methods (Allen and Fildes 2001). Simplicity also aids decision makers’ understanding and implementation, reduces the likelihood of mistakes, and is less expensive.

This idea, that forecasting software just came down to most sophisticated forecasting algorithm has been incredibly durable, especially since the research into this area clearly demonstrates that when actually implemented (that is not in a controlled academic environment where only a small number of items are being forecasted), more complex methods have a hard time defeating simple methods. The major limiting factor that companies face in leveraging forecasting functionality? That would be getting these types of applications to be understandable and to work consistently. That is making them easier to use. Unfortunately, statistical forecasting software vendors do not tend to compete on the basis of how easy their applications are to use, instead the competition tends to center around the sophistication of the mathematics that is within the forecasting methods. Having covered this subject extensively and worked in the field for quite a few years, we can say with confidence that simply having sophisticated mathematical forecasting algorithms/methods within the application is nowhere near enough to obtain consistent forecast accuracy. This leads many companies to have a false sense of security with regards to their statistical forecasting application – and it leads to companies asking themselves “We have statistical forecasting software, why can’t we get a decent forecast?” A certain cynicism has crept into statistical forecasting – however, forecasting is a disciplined endeavor and many implementing companies are not used to performing the type of data accuracy and discipline and testing that is required for forecasting. Forecasting vendors have also been responsible for overselling the ease by which a forecast can be improved by a system without the required work. Finally, many forecasting software vendors have been let down by major consulting companies who seem to primarily be able to staff IT resources for forecasting – that can configure the system, but lack very much experience or an understanding of forecasting beyond textbook knowledge.

Attribute-based Forecasting

Attribute-based forecasting is one of the most important developments since enterprise demand planning software began being used. I know this is a big statement to make, but I make it based upon research into the history of demand planning and in light of my research I am quite confident that my statement is true. After one uses an application capable of attribute-based forecasting, it’s difficult not to come to the same conclusion. And perhaps most interesting is the fact that attribute-based forecasting is still only used in a minority of companies (even though so many vendors say their applications are good at dealing with attributes). Attribute-based forecasting can allow different groups and departments to perform forecast aggregation as they are interested in seeing the data, and does not require that one single static hierarchy be used for all users. With attribute-based forecasting systems, the implementation approach for forecasting and analytic projects, which currently focuses on the technical details of complex database setup, can be changed. Instead of explaining the concept of realignment and spending seemingly endless hours debating what the “one” static hierarchy should be, that time can now be refocused onto determining and explaining how the business can get the most out of the forecasting application. This is an enormous benefit to forecasting system implementation projects, which have tended—along with many other supply chain planning software implementations—to become overly technical affairs with more emphasis on meeting deadlines and IT objectives than on adding value to the business.

Is the Word Out on Attribute-based Forecasting?

I cannot find a good explanation for why the term is searched for in search engines so infrequently. According to SEOMoz.com, the number of searches typed into Google per month for either the term “attribute forecasting,” or “attribute-based forecasting” or other derivations of these terms is negligible. There few Internet articles on this topic as well. Even a search through Google Books does not bring many results (this is usually a very comprehensive way to search for a topic). Attribute-based forecasting may not be used that commonly now; but I predict it will be in the future.

Forecast Disaggregation

Every statistical forecasting vendor that I am aware of states that they can perform forecast aggregation and disaggregation; however, there is a large gap between statistical forecasting vendors in terms of capability. This functionality is too important for clients to simply accept the statement from a vendor that “our product can do that.” In fact, aggregation and disaggregation should both be extensively demonstrated and tested by the company’s planners prior to selecting an application for purchase, in order to discern how easy the aggregation functionality is to use in competing systems. Aggregation and disaggregation capability cannot be an afterthought. Instead these capabilities must be designed into the application from the database layer up. The following quote on this topic is instructive.

Demand Sensing

We point out all trends in each software category that we cover, the valid and invalid. One of the invalid trends that we have been tracking is called demand sensing. The information on the definition of demand sensing is currently and primarily controlled by software vendors. Demand sensing did not come out of the academic community, so there have been few unbiased descriptions of what demand sensing is. Demand sensing is the adjustment of forecasting inside of the lead-time of the product, and therefore when the supply plan cannot respond. If our lead-time is 2 weeks, then demand sensing means changing the forecast less than 14 days out. Demand sensing is the adjustment of forecasting inside of the lead-time of the particular product, and therefore when the supply plan cannot respond. Because demand sensing changes the forecast within the lead-time, demand sensing cannot be considered a forecasting approach. To understand this, its important to understand that while broadly speaking a forecast is a prediction of a future event; in practical terms a forecast is a prediction of a future event that is given with sufficient advanced notification to be worthwhile. For instance, a forecast could be improved for a football game by waiting until 1/2 the game is over. However, when half the game is over, it’s too late to place a bet on the game. Therefore the forecast is not particularly useful because it occurs within the lead-time of when a some benefit from be received from it. The forecast of the game could be further improved by waiting until the minute before the game ends, but again its hard to see how anyone would accept this as a forecast. One could not want to compare the forecast accuracy of a person who forecasts games while in progress versus those that forecast the game before the game begins. This of course brings up the topic of demand sensing and forecast accuracy “improvement.”

So Where Does Demand Sensing Belong?

Instead, it is a method of creating the illusion of improving the forecast accuracy by change the forecast in way that can never translate into an improvement in supply chain performance. This is extremely appealing to any demand planning group that cannot meet its forecasting goals (which is not to say they are realistic or unrealistic).  Interestingly, the vast majority of articles on demand sensing describe it as a method of improving the forecast, and categorize it as a forecasting approach. While its true that forecast accuracy can be improved by waiting until the last minute, this is blurring the line of what forecasting actually is. Vendors and IT analysts like Gartner have completely confused the issue by combining demand sensing with demand shaping.

The list of basic things that most companies cannot do in their forecasting systems is often amazing. A company that should start with doing proven things like those above to improve the forecast, will instead choose to go with the latest “trend,” and buy demand sensing software. They prefer to use an approach that is untested and has no academic research to support the contentions that the vendors in this area (notably Terra Technologies and SAP) make about it.

Software Category Summary

All companies would like to improve their forecast accuracy. Forecasting continues to be one of the great areas of opportunity within companies. Many companies are still using some combination of ERP (which is not a good platform for forecasting) combined with Excel. This is a difficult way to improve forecast accuracy. There have been many mistakes made on demand planning projects, and gaining value from a demand planning application means analyzing those mistakes and adjusting the implementation methodology. Application of the same approaches will lead to the same outcomes.

Overall this software category has several very compelling applications, and also a growing application where we are not sure how it will develop in the future.

The links to the specific research you have paid for is included at the beginning and end of this Software Category Analysis. You will only be able to access the pages that apply to your subscription.

MUFI Rating & Risk

See the MUFI Ratings & Risk below for all of the applications we cover.

Vendor NameApplication
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP ECC
OracleMUFI Rating & Risk – JD Edwards EnterpriseOne
EpicorMUFI Rating & Risk – Epicor ERP
SageMUFI Rating & Risk – Sage X3
InforMUFI Rating & Risk – Infor Lawson
Small and Medium ERP
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP Business One
OracleMUFI Rating & Risk – JD Edwards World
ProcessProMUFI Rating & Risk – ProcessPro
RootstockMUFI Rating & Risk – Rootstock
ERPNextMUFI Rating & Risk – ERPNext
OpenERPMUFI Rating & Risk – OpenERP
MicrosoftMUFI Rating & Risk – Microsoft Dynamics AX
Financial Applications
IntacctMUFI Rating & Risk – Intacct
IntuitMUFI Rating & Risk – Intuit Quickbooks Enterprise Solutions
FinancialForceMUFI Rating & Risk – FinancialForce
NetSuiteMUFI Rating & Risk – NetSuite OneWorld
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP PLM
Arena SolutionsMUFI Rating & Risk – Arena Solutions Arena PLM
Hamilton GrantMUFI Rating & Risk – Hamilton Grant Recipe Management
Demand Planning
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP APO DP
TableauMUFI Rating & Risk – Tableau (Forecasting)
Business Forecast SystemsMUFI Rating & Risk – Forecast Pro TRAK
Demand WorksMUFI Rating & Risk – Demand Works Smoothie
JDAMUFI Rating & Risk – JDA Demand Management
ToolsGroupMUFI Rating & Risk – ToolsGroup SO99 (Forecasting)
Supply Planning
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP SNP
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP SmartOps
ToolsGroupMUFI Rating & Risk – ToolsGroup SO99 (Supply Planning)
Demand WorksMUFI Rating & Risk – Demand Works Smoothie SP
PlanetTogetherMUFI Rating & Risk – PlanetTogether Galaxy APS Superplant
Production Planning
DelfoiMUFI Rating & Risk – Delfoi Planner
PreactorMUFI Rating & Risk – Preactor
AspenTechMUFI Rating & Risk – AspenTech AspenOne
PlanetTogetherMUFI Rating & Risk – PlanetTogether Galaxy APS
BI Heavy
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP BI/BW
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP Business Objects
OracleMUFI Rating & Risk – Oracle BI
SASMUFI Rating & Risk – SAS BI
MicroStrategyMUFI Rating & Risk – MicroStrategy
IBMMUFI Rating & Risk – IBM Cognos
TeradataMUFI Rating & Risk – Teradata
ActuateMUFI Rating & Risk – Actuate ActuateOne
BI Light
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP Crystal Reports
QlikTechMUFI Rating & Risk – QlikTech QlikView
TableauMUFI Rating & Risk – Tableau (BI)
SAPMUFI Rating & Risk – SAP CRM
OracleMUFI Rating & Risk – Oracle RightNow
OracleMUFI Rating & Risk – Oracle CRM On Demand
InforMUFI Rating & Risk – Infor Epiphany
Base CRMMUFI Rating & Risk – Base CRM
SalesforceMUFI Rating & Risk – Salesforce Enterprise
SugarCRMMUFI Rating & Risk – SugarCRM
MicrosoftMUFI Rating & Risk – Microsoft Dynamics CRM
NetSuiteMUFI Rating & Risk – NetSuite CRM