Tableau to IPO in 2013? rumor or ...?

Dan Primack, Senior Editor at Fortune, posted today at http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/22/tableau-to-ipo-next-year/ a suggestion that Tableau can go public next year and I quote:

"Scott Sandell, a partner with New Enterprise Associates  (the venture capital firm that is Tableau's largest outside shareholder) told Dan "that the "board-level discussions" are about taking the company public next year, even though it has the numbers to go out now if it so chose. Sandell added that the company has been very efficient with $15 million or so it has raised in VC funding, and that it shouldn't need additional pre-IPO financing".

Mr. Primack also mentioned an "unsolicited email, from outside spokesman: "Next week Tableau Software will announce its plans to go IPO"...

I do not have comments, but I will not be surprised if somebody will buy Tableau before IPO... Among potential buyers I can imagine:

• Microsoft (Seattle, Multidimensional Cubes, integration with Excel),


• Teradata (Aster Data is in, front-end for "big data" is needed),


• IBM (if you cannot win against the innovator, how about buying it),


• and even Oracle (everything moving is the target?)...

Qlikview Prices

Qliktech made its price list public on its website. In a move that calls for "other enterprise software and business intelligence vendors to follow suit, QlikTech is taking the mystery out of purchasing software".

I expanded this post with comments and comparison of pricing from Qlikview and Tableau.

I have to mention that Tableau has pricing on its website for years. I wish Tableau will publish on its website the pricing for Core License (for Tableau Server) and more detail for Tableau Digital and Server pricing, but other than that, Tableau is a few years ahead of Qliktech in terms of "pricing transparency"... Also talking with Qliktech sales people until today was more time consuming then needed and I hope that public pricing will make it more easy.

One note about Qlikview pricing: Qliktech has a very weird requirement to buy a Document License ($350 per named user, per 1 (ONE) document) for each document is a potential time-bomb for Qlikview. But they are very good at sales  (Total Q4 2011 revenue of $108.1 million increases 33% compared to fourth quarter of 2010, see http://investor.qlikview.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-12-65355&CIK=1305294) and not me, so I will be glad if Qliktech will prove me wrong!

 Again, for now, just review this:

http://www.qlikview.com/us/explore/pricing

I tried to compare the cost of average Deployment  for Qlikview-based and Tableau-based Data Visualization Systems using currently Published prices of Qlikview and Tableau (I actually have an estimation for Spotfire-based deployment too, but TIBCO did not published its pricing yet). See prices in table below, and comparison of average deploymnet after/below this table:

[googleapps domain="docs" dir="spreadsheet/pub" query="hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AuP4OpeAlZ3PdFJYRUNwOXZ6VHdrczFyeDE3a3k5S2c&output=html&widget=true" width="508" height="440" /]

I took as average the deployment with 46 users (it is my estimate of average Qlikview Deployment), 3 desktop clients, 10 documents/visualizations available to 10 (potentially different) named users each, 1 Application Server and maintenance for 3 years.

.

My estimate of total cost for 3 years came up as about $118K for Qlikview Deployment and $83K for Tableau Deployment (both before discounts and taxes and both do not include any development, training, consulting and IT cost).

Note 3/8/12: you may wish to review this blog post too:

http://i3community.com/blogs/entry/qlikview-user-license-named-client-access-license-cal

16 Data Visualization Vendors are squared

Since Gartner keeps doing its "Magic Quadrant" (MQ; see MQ at the very bottom of this post) for Business Intelligence Platforms every year, it forces me to do my

"Yellow Square for DV, 2012"

for Data Visualization (DV) Platforms too. I did it last year and I have to do it again because I disagreed with Gartner in 2011 and I disagree with it again in 2012. I have a few different (from Gartner) views, but I will mention 3.

1. There is no such thing as Business Intelligence as a software platform. It is a marketing term, used as an umbrella for multiple technologies and market segments. Gartner released its MQ for BI at the same time it had "BI Summit 2012" in London on which it practically acknowledged that BI is not a correct term and suggested to use the term "Business Analytics" instead, see for example this article: http://timoelliott.com/blog/2012/02/what-i-found-interesting-about-gartner-bi-summit-2012-london.html

2. I personally is using - for many years - the term Data Visualization as a replacement for BI, as much more specific. Because of that, I removed from consideration a few vendors present in Gartner's MQ for BI and added a few important DV vendors.

3. I used for my assessment 3 groups of criterias, which I already used on this blog before, for example here:

http://apandre.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/dv-comparison-2011/

and here:

http://apandre.wordpress.com/tools/comparison/

As a result, I got a very different from Gartner the placement of "Data Visualization Platforms and their vendors":

.

For reference purposes please see below the Magic Quadrant for BI, published by Gartner this month. As you can see our lists of Vendors are overlapping by 11 companies, but in my opinion their relative positioning is very different:

Data Visualization page on Google+

I started recently the new Data Visualization Google+ page as the extension of this blog here:

https://plus.google.com/111053008130113715119/posts

.

Internet has a lot of articles, pages, blogs, data, demos, vendors, sites, dashboards, charts, tools and other materials related to Data Visualization and this Google+ page will try to point to most relevant items and sometimes to comment on most interesting of them.

.

What was unexpected is a fast success of this Google+ page - in a very short time it got 200+ followers and that number keeps growing!

.