2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis

Silver Sponsor
2020 CTRM VENDOR
PERCEPTION SURVEY
AND ANALYSIS

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS A ComTechAdvisory Report
INTRODUCTION
The 2020 Commodity Technology Advisory’s Vendor Perception Study is a biennial survey
and analysis conducted to establish end-user and market influencer perceptions of the CTRM
vendors, and to determine market leadership perceptions as well as buying criteria and brand
awareness of the different vendors. As in previous years, the research survey was comprised of
a comprehensive set of questions that CTRM end-users and industry consultants were invited to
answer. CTRM system vendors were explicitly excluded from participating and ComTech analysts
were diligent in ensuring no responses from any vendor representatives were included in the final
results. The survey was open for responses during the Spring of 2020 and ultimately collected
some 290 validated and usable responses.
The survey was promoted in several ways to attract
bona fide respondents. ComTech Advisory used email
notification, Linkedin posts, blog articles, banner
advertisingandverbalrequeststoencourageresponses.
CTRM vendors and service providers also promoted the
survey of their own accord. Some 762 people opened
the survey instrument over an 89-day period in the
Spring, while 322 of those attempted to complete all
the questions in the survey (42%). Many of the 762
opted out at the privacy notice without answering any
questions at all, while others answered some, but
not all questions. These incomplete responses were
discarded as it was made clear in the survey preamble
and instructions that only complete survey responses
would be used. Compared to the last Vendor Perception
Study conducted in 2018, response counts were up
significantly over 2018 (195 responses) and in fact, it
was a record response for this type of study. We believe
that this may have been due in part to the COVID-19
lockdown that took place over the late Spring period.
ComTech was extremely rigorous in validating the
complete responses and in the end, utilized only
290 (38% of total questionnaire opens and 90% of
completed surveys) in the results presented below.
Reasons for rejecting responses included:
1. The respondent worked for a vendor. Despite
instructions to discourage vendor representative
responses, ComTech eliminated several such
responses. These included responses that were
obviously by vendor staff using a vendor email
addressandseveralthatwerefromvendorpersonnel
using a private email or alternate addresses,
2. Duplicate responses were eliminated,
3. Finally, suspicious responses were eliminated.
Theseincludedthosewithfictitiousemailaddresses,
names or company names, or those lacking any
validation data.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.
The remaining 290 responses were deemed to be
valid and were compiled in our analysis and the results
presented and discussed in this report.
This pool of valid respondents was comprised of 71%
end-users and 29% influencers (consultants/advisors),
which is a record percentage of end-user responses
when compared to previous VPS surveys. Again, we
think this may be due in part to these CTRM system
working from home during the lockdown.
Vendor perceptions are interesting both in terms of how
well a vendor is known in the market and as to how that
vendor is viewed by those that are at least aware of it and
its products. However, vendor perceptions invariably lag
current reality in that the opinions expressed in the data
effectively represent views of past performance. This
means that it is equally important to look at trends in
vendor perception through time. We have done this by
utilizing similar historical data collected and analyzed by
ComTech and CommodityPoint over the last decade or
so. This trend data is presented and discussed within
this report.
The CTRM software sector has experienced many
significant M&A events and this survey also gives
us a chance to look at historical brand strength. In
analyzing the results, we have sometimes looked at
the data in two ways - first, in terms of the company or
brand names actually used by the respondents (e.g.
OpenLink, Allegro, SolArc); and second, by rolling up
and consolidating the various related names that are
part of a singular entity (e.g. Openlink, Allegro, etc. are
consolidated under ION). This allows us to thoroughly
examine brand historical awareness and make past
comparisons.
Given that perceptions will lag current conditions, this
report, representing vendor perceptions prior to mid-
year 2020, should be but only one of many data points
used by anyone looking for an ETRM or CTRM software
solution as events and vendor performance can and will
change very rapidly in this software category.
4

We were also presented with something of a dilemma
when reviewing the raw data. Each of the three
geographicregionsisatadifferentlevelofCTRMmarket
maturity. North America is the most mature market
for CTRM software, while Asia-Pacific (where many of
the responses originated, and particularly from China)
is a significantly less mature market. Though Europe
trails North America in maturity by several years based
primarily on the liberalization of the wholesale energy
markets, it too is well ahead of Asia-Pacific. These
various maturity levels were reflected in the responses
in that a respondent from North America or Europe was
likely to name several or many different vendors that
they aware of, including across the various categories.
However, Asia-Pacific responses generally named just
one vendor and almost always the vendor they used.
Without taking these factors into consideration, the
overall (global) market view would be distorted and
heavily weighted toward those Asia-Pacific responses.
To adjust for this weighting in response rates among
the various regions, we made the decision to adjust
our analysis to account for the level of market maturity
by utilizing the relative size of each of these markets -
as the more mature markets will have a higher CTRM
spend than immature markets. Utilizing ComTech’s
most recent market sizing research, reflecting total
market spend for CTRM products through the end of
year 2019, yields the adjustment factors we utilized in
weighting response from each region (Table 1). These
adjustments also provide more consistency when
looking at the change in vendor perceptions over time.
Table 1 – Weightings Used for Geographic Region Responses
North America - 1.00
Europe - 0.78
Asia-Pacific - 0.26
Africa - 0.09
South America - 0.07
5
As stated above, we had a record number of completions and a record number of end-user
responses. This has allowed us to look at the trends we measure in several additional ways
including:
1. By geographic region – namely North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific regions on a stand-
alone basis, which highlights some interesting trends and differences between the three
regions; and,
2. Between users and non-users or influencers.
DEMOGRAPHICS

Figure 1 shows the distribution of valid responses by
geographic region. We had more European responses
overall (114 or 39% of the total), followed by North
American (102 responses or 35%) and Asian-Pacific
(72 responses or 25%). We also had single responses
from Africa and South America. Figure 2 shows the
valid responses by country of origin, which shows the
USA with the largest number of responses.
We also had a record number of users participate
in the study with 207 valid responses. Overall, the
demographics look reasonably balanced (considering
historical CTRM penetration by industry segment)
except perhaps the ags & softs and consumer groups,
which appear underrepresented. Figure 3 shows the
distribution of responses by industry segment.
In summary, this study is based on a record number
of responses, weighted towards end-users (and with
good cross-industry representation), with an over-
representation of Asia-Pacific responses that have been
adjusted for in the analysis.
Installed base must also be considered in the sample as
it can be assumed that users of a particular solution will
bemostawareofthatbrandandmayviewit(givenlimited
experience with other products) as the best solution in
many instances. That said, 37% of the responded stated
that they had no solution installed (largely the influencer
respondents plus a few end-users utilizing spreadsheets
or homegrown systems), the largest response when
asked “What CTRM system were you using (including
none)?”. The most widely installed solution among the
respondents was Ion OpenLink at just about 8% of the
6

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved. 7
respondents. Others also quite strongly represented in
the sample included Enuit (7.2%), Brady (6.9%), Ion
Allegro (6.55%) and Ion SolArc (5.86%). No other
vendorwasinstalledatmorethan5%oftherespondents’
companies and a total of 35 different vendors were
cited as being installed in at least one respondent’s
company. As in past, several respondents indicated they
had several vendors/products installed. Figure 4 shows
all vendors noted as having more than two installations
among the respondents.
Other installed vendors (1 mention each) included
Pioneer, Kisters, ABB, Powel, iRely, Likron, SAS, P2C,
Inatech,ValueCreedandHivedome.Only2respondents
stated that they used a homegrown custom solution.
When products are consolidated by Vendor, Ion software
was installed at 22.4% of the respondent’s companies
giving ION the largest market share in the sample by
far. However, Enuit, Brady, Ignite, Igloo and a few other
vendorsarealsoquitestronglyrepresentedintheresults,
potentially representing an oversampling beyond their
actual market share. However, by segmenting the data,
it is also possible to comment on where certain vendors
appear to have more market share or brand loyalty as
well – See below.
We also asked which vendors/products respondents
had experience with implementing as again this will help
to set opinions and brand awareness. Just under 20% of
respondents had not implemented any solution, and the
most implemented vendor solution was Ion Openlink
with about 30% of respondents having worked with that
solution. This was followed by Ion Allegro (17.93%),
FIS (11.72%) and Brady (10.69%). No other solution
had been implemented by more than 10% of the
respondents (Figure 5).
In total, the respondents had experience with
implementing 59 different vendors/products. Vendors
with less than two mentions included Utilidex,
Hivedome, Gen10, Cubelogic, ABB, Veson, Lacima,
Aurora, Molecule, Likron, Beacon Platform, EMK3,
Graintrack, Dachs, DMS, Inatech, Murex and others.
In terms of a consolidated Ion brand, just over half
(51.7%) of respondents had implemented an Ion
product.
For a majority of respondents, no vendor or product was
deserving of being the ‘most satisfied with’ and almost
one third noted that they could not name a vendor
they were most satisfied with. Of those that could, Ion
Openlink had the most respondents saying they were

satisfied followed by Enuit (9.6%), Ion Allegro (8.28%),
Brady (5.52%) and Ion (undifferentiated by product
brand - 5.11%). No other vendor was mentioned by more
than 5% of the respondents, most likely due to limited
experience on the part of the respondents with other
vendors. In total 43 different vendors were mentioned
explicitly in this category (Figure 6).
As an additional dimension in terms of satisfaction, we
could look at satisfaction among installed customers
and see how many customers of a particular vendor
said they were most satisfied with that vendor. However,
we do believe this would be a stretch of the data and
produce very biased results towards vendors with fewer
or very few installations.

Brand Awareness
In total, when asked to name all vendors they were
aware of, the respondents mentioned over 100 different
vendorsandproducts(althoughthisincludesnamingthe
same vendor by different names such as OLF and ION,
for example). In North America, respondents mentioned
53 different names, Europeans mentioned 67 different
names and Asian respondents could identify just 26
different names, indicating in part, the greater maturity
of the North American and European markets (i.e.
more mature and older markets will support a larger
and more diverse group of vendors). Respondents in
the user category named 71 different brands whereas
influencers could name only 59, perhaps reflecting less
awareness of newer and smaller brands on the part
of consultants (however, given that the difference is
somewhat insignificant, that might be difficult to defend
as a hypothesis).
As usual, the brands named represented a mixed bag
of long-gone brand names along with current brand
names and one or two curious identifications of vendors
that do not really serve the CTRM marketplace at all.
Interestingly, once we started asking for thoughts on
industry leadership across many categories, there
was more focus on current bona fide CTRM vendors
generally.
Overall (Figure 7), Ion OpenLink and Ion Allegro remain
themostwell-knownbrands(52%and48%respectively.
Ion Triple Point is the third best-known brand at 33%
followed by FIS (30%), Eka (20%) and Brady (20%).
Ion thus have three of the top five brands in their product
portfolio. Other brands challenging the top 5 are Enuit,
Ion Aspect, Ion (not differentiated by product line), Ion
SolArc and SAP. All other brands were mentioned on
a weighted basis by less than 10% of the respondents.
GLOBAL BRAND AWARENESS AND
MARKET PERCEPTIONS

Respondents that use a particular product currently will
probably be more likely to name it in such a response.
So, we can remove installed base responses for each
vendor to compensate for this potential bias. When this
is done, the order of the top 9 vendors does not change,
but Ion SolArc falls out of 10th place and is replaced by
Pioneer Systems (Figure 8).
At first sight, it would appear that Ion totally dominates
brand awareness, and this is reinforced when we
substitute all Ion sub-brands for Ion (i.e. inspect each
response for a mention of an Ion brand). In this case,
Ion is then mentioned by over 75% of all respondents
on a weighted basis while FIS in second position is
mentioned by only 30%. The top 6 best-known brands
then become Ion, FIS, Eka, Brady, Enuit and SAP (all
weighted by geography).
Overall CTRM Market
Leadership Perception
In terms of overall perceptions of leadership for CTRM,
surprisingly ‘None’ was the most popular response with
over a quarter of the respondents rejecting any notion
that there is any leader in CTRM. Ion was the highest
ranked vendor in this category as Ion Openlink (17%),
Ion (14%) and Ion Allegro (6%) are in the top three
vendor positions. No other vendor measured more
than 5% of the respondents’ support for overall CTRM
leadership. Many different vendors were mentioned
by at least one respondent, and although Ion is plainly
viewed as the overall leader by a majority of respondents,
it isn’t a particularly dominant majority. Figure 10 shows
only those vendors with more than two mentions. In all,
33 different vendors were mentioned by at least one
respondent.
When Ion brands are consolidated, the company is
clearly thought of as the leader in this category with
41% of the respondents mentioning the company or its
products. However, this is historically a low percentage
and, quite a few respondents who named an Ion brand
in this category also added a statement about market
share or size of the company as their reason for stating
Ion.

Perceived Market Leader
for Natural Gas
Similarily, for natural gas, a majority of respondents
couldn’t name any vendor as the leader (39%) but a
majority of those that did name Ion Openlink (14%)
followed by Ion Allegro (8%) and Ion undifferentiated
(7.5%). In addition to those, only Enuit (6%) was named
by more respondents than ‘Don’t Know’ (3.9%) despite
21 different vendor/products being named by at least
one respondent (Figure 12).
Perceived Leader for Oil
and Products
The majority of respondents saw no vendor as the
leader for oil and products ETRM and ‘None’ was noted
by over one-third of the respondents (Figure 11). Ion
Openlink was the most cited vendor but only with 11%.
However, another 9% cited Ion with no sub-brand and
Ion Allegro was next with 7%. Enuit followed, with 6%
and Ion SolArc was noted by with a little over 5%. No
other vendor got more than 5% of the respondent’s votes
despite 22 different vendors/products being named by
respondents. Plainly, this is a category that Ion leads
currently via virtue of their various products that service
oil and products, with Enuit, Amphora, Ignite and SAP
following as challengers in the space.

Perceived Market Leader
for Power
Surprisingly, those who stated no vendor was the leader
for power ETRM were a majority of 40% (Figure 13).
Again, Ion Openlink was the vendor that a majority of
respondentsthatnamedavendorcitedwith12%andIon
was next with 8% followed by Ion Allegro with 7%. OATI
had the next highest number of respondents naming it
in this category with slightly more than 5%. No other
vendor gained more than 5% of the respondents’ votes
and were named by fewer than those who indicated they
didn’t know of a leader in the category. In all, a total of
21 vendors were named by at least one respondent.
Market Leadership
Perceptions for Ags &
Softs
As in previous assessments, Ags & Softs is a less
well-known category of CTRM and is also quite
broad - encompassing many different commodities.
Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that 65% of the
respondents said the no vendor was the leader in the
space (Figure 14). Of those who did cite a vendor, 6%
cited Eka as the leader. More than 4% did not know and
no other vendor scored higher than the “Don’t Know”
response. In total, only 17 vendors were named once or
more by respondents.

Market Leadership
Perceptions for Metals
The number of respondents who noted “None” as leader
in CTRM for Metals (Figure 15) was a majority at 63%.
Those that did name a vendor as the leader, most often
cited Brady (10%). Enuit was the only other vendor
named more than “Don’t Know” (4%) with just under
5%. In all, respondents named 14 different vendors in
this category.
Market Leadership
Perceptions in Ores and
Concentrates
Even fewer respondents had an opinion in this
commodity group and 73% said no vendor was the
leader (Figure 16). Of those that named a leader, the
majority named Brady (5%) followed by “Don’t know”
at 4%. However, 18 different vendor/products were
named at least once by respondents.

Market Leadership
Perceptions – Software
as a Service
The vast majority of respondents don’t see any vendor
as the leader in SaaS (62%). Despite that, 32 different
vendors were mentioned one or more times by other
respondents, and it is fair to say this seems to be a
category with few firm opinions (Figure 17). However,
the majority of those naming a vendor cited Molecule
as the leader (5%) followed by Pioneer (4%) and Ion
Aspect (3%).
Market Leadership
Perceptions – Risk
Respondents named 28 different vendors at least once
in this category (Figure 18), yet the majority indicated
they believed no single vendor was the leader (39%).
Those who named a vendor named Ion Openlink mostly
(18%) and Ion indeterminate next with 8% - we believe
it likely that many of them were thinking of Openlink
as well – a product/company that historically has long
been perceived as the market leader in this category.
Only Enuit were also named by more than 5% of the
respondents (5.4%).

Market Leadership
Perceptions –
Implementation
The jury is well and truly out in this category with
respondents naming 40 different vendors at least once,
indicating a wide diversity of opinions or experiences
(Figure 18). The majority see no leader at all, however
(44%), though Enuit was the most highly ranked vendor
with 7% followed by Ignite at slightly less than 4%. None
of the other vendors were named by more than 4% of
the respondents.
Market Leadership
Perceptions – Technical
Architecture
Respondents named 33 different vendors as leaders in
technical architecture (Figure 20), and yet the majority
believe that no vendor leads (39%). Ion Openlink was
named by the majority of those that cited a vendor with
9% followed by Ion (5.4%), SAP (5.2%) and Enuit
(5.1%). No other vendor was named by more than 5%
of the respondents. Ion Allegro, Ignite, Pioneer, nGenue,
Comfin, Fendahl, FIS, Contigo, Eka, Igloo, Molecule,
Beacon, Ion Aspect and Amphora were all mentioned
at least twice.

16
Market Leadership
Perceptions –
Commodity Management
Commodity Management is a term that is often
misunderstood and, despite attempts to define it as the
superset of ERP for commodities and CTRM1
, some
vendors insist on marketing their CTRM as Commodity
Management, which only seems to further cloud the
picture. Unfortunately, the results show that the term
Commodity Management has not been understood as
we define it.
Ion Consolidated (26%) and Ion Openlink (11%) were
the most mentioned products followed by SAP (less
than 6%). Of those 3 mentions, it could be argued that
only SAP should be categorized as a true Commodity
Management platform. Around 39% thought there was
no market leader and more than 5% suggested Enuit
and Ion Allegro.
BRAND AWARENESS AND PERCEIVED
LEADERSHIP VIEWS BY GEOGRAPHY
For the first time, the response rate was such that we can examine the above categories by
geography for North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific regions as well as by types of respondent.
Thisanalysiswillhelpustounderstandtheregionalvariationsinbrandawarenessandperceptions,
as well as better differentiate between users and influencers opinions.
North America
The North American ETRM market is the most mature
in terms of the regions dating back to FERC 636 for
natural gas and even earlier for crude oil and refined
products. The power market is a little younger, but still
quitematurewhenmeasuredagainstothergeographies.
As might be expected, there are many vendors who are
regional and cover only North American markets for
various commodities, though particularly natural gas,
power, and agricultural markets. In terms of the broader
CTRM software category, early adoption of CTRM
products in the North American markets has resulted in
a broad and mature market for these products.
1. CTRM As An Architecture, Commodity Technology Advisory White Paper – available on CTRMCenter.com

Brand Awareness
With a long history and a large number of vendors
and products serving the market, North American
respondents have experience with many solutions and
were able to name 55 different vendors ranging from
long-gone names like Nucleus, ZaiNet, Primo, and so
on, to very new platforms like CTRMCloud, for example.
For the purposes of this analysis, we have subsumed
older brands into their current owners with the exception
of the Ion products – as those brands continue to be
marketed as a family of brands under the Ion umbrella.
Ion Openlink is the most well-known brand among the
North American respondents 56% of whom named that
vendor. However, Ion Allegro (55%) and Ion TriplePoint
(45%) are also strongly recognized. FIS at 38% is the
fourth most well-known brand followed by Eka at 27%.
Enuit is also quite a well-known brand in North America
with almost 20% of North American respondents
naming it followed by Molecule, Ion SolArc and Ion
undifferentiated with about 17% each recognition.
Specific North American vendors like OATI and nGenue
also have reasonable brand recognition as do Pioneer,
Brady, Amphora, SAP and others. Figure 20 shows
the results but, for the sake of clarity, excludes those
vendors with only one respondent naming them. Almost
all respondents named a vendor and those saying ‘None’
were in a small minority.
If we remove the installed base of the various vendors
to see how that impacts name recognition, very little
changes, though many of the vendors named just once
are eliminated as their mentions come from customers.

Figure 23 shows the adjusted results. Plainly, Ion is the
dominant brand in North America with FIS and Eka the
challengers. However, other future challengers appear
to be brands like Enuit, Pioneer, Fendahl and the newer
platforms in the mix.
Market Leadership
Perceptions
Something interesting is occurring in North America
when looking at this data. First, Ion appears to be seen
as the market leader as an overall brand (although
Ion Openlink is second) and so perhaps the level of
awareness of developments in the CTRM is greater in
a mature market (i.e. the knowledge of Ion as a super
brandismorepronounced)?Despitethat,theleadership
perception isn’t as strong as what we see in historical
data and the majority actually say there is no market
leader. Perhaps this reduced strength of response
is a reaction to concerns about the concentration of
applications under a single mega-vendor?
Challengers to the perceived market leadership of Ion
appear to largely be Enuit, Ignite, SAP and nGenue
according to this data; reinforcing the view put forward
above regarding future challengers while brands like
FIS and Eka appear to be weaker when it comes to
leadership perceptions in this market region.

Oil and Refined Products
Thepatternaboveisrepeatedwhenitcomestoperceived
leadership for oil and refined products. The majority of
North American respondents say that no vendor is the
leader in this category. Among the named vendors, Ion
(undifferentiated) is seen as the leader followed by Ion
Openlink, Ion SolArc and Ion Allegro. Amphora, SAP
and Enuit are challengers but far behind the combined
perceptions around Ion’s leadership. Since in these
leadership categories, almost all respondents name
a single vendor, Ion’s dominance can be obtained by
summing the different Ion brands so that Ion brands are
viewed as the perceived market leader by slightly more
than 50% of the respondents (Figure 25).
Natural Gas
The picture looks similar for natural gas where the
consolidated Ion brand (38%) dominates, but those
who say no vendor (33%) are a close second. Of the
Ion brands, Allegro and Openlink are almost equally
considered the leading products with Enuit, nGenue
and Ignite being the leading challengers though their
recognition is dwarfed by the consolidated Ion brand
leadership perception. In total, just 15 vendors were
named.

Electric Power
For ETRM for power, the majority of North American
respondents saw no leader (43%). Of those that cited
a vendor, Ion led with 12% followed by Ion Allegro,
OATI and Ion Openlink. Only 13 vendors were named,
including a couple that really don’t do power. There
were more respondents saying no vendor led than those
citing an Ion branded vendor, though Ion consolidated
was still by far the strongest brand (Figure 27).
Ags & Softs
The dominant market in North America is energy but
Ags & Softs is also important and growing. Despite that,
respondents managed to name just 11 vendors in this
category and the vast majority saw no vendor as the
leader (Figure 26). Ion (8%) had the majority with Eka
(7%) a close second, followed by Ion Openlink (5%). The
consolidated Ion brand would be the perceived market
leader, but it was cited by only 16% of those responding.

Metals
North American respondents named only 9 vendors
in the metals category and almost two-thirds of all
respondents thought no vendor to have a leadership
position for metals (Figure 29). Brady, with its
origins in metals CTRM software, was cited by the
most respondents despite being a predominantly
European vendor (9%). Ion Openlink, Enuit and Ion
(undifferentiated) followed. If those citing Ion brands
are consolidated, then it marginally would be the leader
with 10%.
Ores & Concentrates
In the Ores & Concentrates category, 75% of North
American respondents saw no leader. Of those who
did suggest a leader, the largest number said Brady
(5%). Only 12 vendors were cited in this category with
a consolidation of the Ion brands being suggested by
most respondents (8%) (Figure 30).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
None
Ion Consolidated
Brady
Ion
Don't know
SAP
Ion Openlink
Enuit
Ignite
Amphora
Comfin
Ion TriplePoint
Fendahl
Ion SolArc
Figure 30 - Perceived Market Leader Ores and
Concentrates - North America

Software as a Service
In terms of SaaS (Figure 31), North American
respondents are also unclear as over two-thirds said
that no vendor led in this category. Of those that had an
opinion,Molecule(6%)wasthemosthighlyrankedandif
Ionproductsareconsolidated,thenitwouldbethemarket
leader with (7%). This is intriguing, as in the past Aspect
has had a very strong showing in this category; but now,
as part of Ion, it registered as the leader by only 3% of
the respondents. While respondents did name a host of
newer cloud platforms, there are many missing with just
19 vendors cited and it seems like there is much room
for educating the market in this segment.
Risk Management
In the risk management category (Figure 32), Ion
Openlink (26%) is viewed as the market leader in
North America with Ion undifferentiated (12%), Ion
Allegro (5%), Enuit (5%) and Ignite (4%) following.
Vendors that ComTech would consider to be real risk
management software vendors are barely mentioned
with, for example, CubeLogic and Lacima being cited
by only a few respondents. In essence, this segment is
really being interpreted as the best risk management
content of a CTRM solution.
Respondents mentioned 17 different vendors in total
and just over a third believed there is no leader in the
category. Consolidation of the various Ion platforms is at
44% of all responses.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Ion Consolidated
None
Ion Openlink
Ion
Ion Allegro
Enuit
Ignite
FIS
Cubelogic
Lacima
SAP
Agiboo
Amphora
Beacon
Comfin
Don't know
Eka
Molecule
nGenue
Ion TriplePoint
Figure 32 - Perceived Market Leadership Risk Management - North
America

Implementation
Respondents named 22 different vendors in this
category (Figure 33), though only those with 2 or
more mentions are displayed. However, close to half
of those responding stated there was no leader in the
category. Enuit led marginally among vendors with 8%
of respondents naming the company. Ion and nGenue
were the next most popular choices with 6% each.
Consolidating all Ion platforms, however, would put Ion
in the leadership position with 12% of the respondents
citing an Ion product.
Architecture
Around 40% of the respondents saw no vendor/
product as the leader in this category (Figure 34) and
Ion Openlink was the highest-ranked vendor/product
(10%). Ion (9%) and Ion Allegro (7%) also received a
number of mentions, as did SAP (6%). In a category
in which 20 vendors were named, Ion consolidated
would be the clear market leader with over a quarter of
respondents citing an Ion platform.

While more than a third see no market leader, Ion
Openlink – which by our definition is NOT a commodity
management platform, was seen as the market leader
by 13% of the respondents followed by Ion (12%), Ion
Allegro (8%) (although Allegro marketed themselves as
a commodity management platform it again wouldn’t be
under our definition). Enuit (6%) and SAP (5%) are next
(of those products mentioned, only SAP is a Commodity
Management platform by ComTech’s definition).
A consolidation of Ion platforms – none of which is a
Commodity Management platform according to the
definition except perhaps the old Ion TriplePoint – was
cited by 37% of respondents.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
None
Ion Consolidated
Ion Openlink
Ion
Ion Allegro
Enuit
SAP
Ignite
Ion SolArc
Agiboo
FIS
Amphora
Comfin
Cubelogic
Eka
Hivedome
iRely
Molecule
nGenue
OATI
Ion TriplePoint
Don't know
Figure 35 -Perceived Market Leadership Commodity Management
- North America

Europe
Europe is a fairly mature market – not just for energy,
but also CTRM generally. The European respondents
came from 19 different countries with the UK being the
largest grouping. Users were well represented with the
majority working in Trading or Utilities, while influencers
were largely consultants (Figure 37).
The European respondents named 67 different
vendor/products but again Ion Openlink (47%) was the
best-know brand closely followed by Ion Allegro (45%).
Brady (35%), FIS (28%) and Ion TriplePoint (23%)
rounded out the top 5. European ETRM vendor Contigo
also quite well known along with Eka and SAP (Figure
38).

Vendors with only a single mention were excluded
from Figure 36 for clarity, but they included Exxeta,
Blacklight, EmPower, Invensoft, Calypso, Cultura,
CTRMCloud, VuePoint, SAS, Procom, Kyos, Dachs,
Scalable and Likron.
After removing the installed base for each vendor, Brady
falls to 5th as quite a few Brady customers responded,
but otherwise, the top 5 are unchanged. After removing
vendor installations, 47 vendor/products remain. The
respondents had 23 different solutions installed. Over
a third of the respondents had no solution installed and
just 1 had a custom solution (Figure 39).
Market Leadership
Perceptions
Around a quarter of European respondents believe
there is no leader in CTRM (Figure 40). Those that held
an opinion named 23 different vendor/products and
18% named Ion Openlink as the overall market leader. A
further 10% cited Ion (undifferentiated) the leader. SAP
was in third position with 6% and all other vendors/
products ranked less than 5%.
Oil & Products
Almost 60% of European respondents saw no leader for
oil and products (Figure 41). Just 9% cited Ion Openlink
as the leader followed by Ion Allegro (6%) and Amphora
(4%). In total, 16 vendor/products were cited by at least
one respondent. When the Ion brands are consolidated,
it would be perceived as the market leader by just over
20% of the European respondents.

Natural Gas
More than 46% of the European respondents could
not name any leader for natural gas (Figure 42), but
17.5% believed Ion Openlink to be the market leader
in this category. Ion Allegro was a distant second along
with Don’t know, Ion and Pioneer (all about 5%). Only
12 vendor/products were cited by respondents and
consolidated Ion brands were cited by almost 30% of
the respondents.
Electric Power
Just over a third of European respondents saw no
leader for power (Figure 43) while 16% thought that Ion
Openlink was the leader followed by Contigo and Don’t
Know (6% each). Pioneer was also named by more than
5%. Respondents cited 16 different vendors including
several European-specific vendors like Contigo, Brady
(for power) Likron, Trayport Visotech, Powel and Igloo.
The consolidated Ion brands would be perceived to be
the market leader in around fourth of the respondent’s
opinion.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
None
Ion Consolidated
Ion Openlink
Ion Allegro
Don't know
Ion
Pioneer
Igloo
Ignite
Comfin
Contigo
SAP
Brady
Cubelogic
FIS
Figure 42 - Perceived Market Leadership Natural Gas -
Europe
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
None
Ion Consolidated
Ion Openlink
Don't know
Contigo
Pioneer
Ion Allegro
Brady
Igloo
Ion
FIS
Ignite
Comfin
SAP
Cubelogic
Likron
Powel
Previse
Visotech
Figure 43 - Perceived Market Leadership Electric Power -
Europe

Ags & Softs
In the Ags and Softs category, almost 70% of the
European respondents noted no company lead that
market segment and 5% indicated they did not know. Of
those expressing an opinion, Eka was deemed to be the
market leader (7%) and other vendors were named by
only a handful of respondents. Only 13 different vendors
were suggested and if the Ion brands were consolidated,
Eka would still be perceived as market leader by the
majority.
Metals
European vendor Brady was cited as the perceived
market leader in Metals by 14% of respondents in
Europe and no other vendor was named by more than
5% of those expressing an opinion (Figure 45). Just
about two-thirds saw no vendor as being the leader,
however. Only 12 different vendors were named in this
category and a consolidation of Ion brands had 5% of
the respondents citing them as leader.

Ores & Concentrates
Among European respondents, those who said there
was no vendor leading the ores & concentrates market
or that they didn’t know were a large majority (80%). Of
the 14 vendors/ products named, only Brady crossed
the 5% threshold in the opinion of the respondents
(Figure 46).
EuropeanrespondentscitedPioneerasmarketleaderin
Software as a Service more often than any other vendor
(9%). In total, the respondents named 25 vendor/
products (single respondents mentions not shown
on chart) including Agiboo, Ion Allegro, Cubelogic,
FIS, Graintrack, Ignite, Veson, Inatech, Ion, Likron and
Trayport’s Visotech.

Risk Management
European respondents also saw Ion Openlink as the
leader in CTRM for risk management (11%) but a larger
percentage indicated there is no leader in this category
(45%). Ion and Ion Allegro make up the top three and
no other vendor was cited by more than 4% of those
responding. However, Europeans named 22 different
vendor/products in this category including some true
risk management platforms like Lacima, Cubelogic and
RiskEdge, as well as TRADESPARENT, which has
a strong presence in the ags & softs markets for risk
aggregation. Most respondents named CTRM vendors
like Ion Openlink. 21% of respondents cited an Ion
solution in this category (Figure 48).
Implementation
Just over 40% of European respondents thought there
was no leader in the implementation category (Figure
49). Those that expressed a preference cited UK-based
vendor Contigo most often along with Pioneer (6%).
Igloo was the third most popular choice with slightly
more than 5%. No other vendor was identified by more
than 5% of the respondents, and a total of 27 different
vendors were named in this category.

Technical Architecture
7% of European respondents saw Ion Openlink as the
leader in technical architecture with SAP (5%) the
second choice. In total 26 different solutions/vendors
were mentioned in this category, with nearly 40%
noting there was not a leader, indicating that none of the
vendors were truly differentiating their technologies in
this market.

Europeanrespondentsappeartohaveaslightlystronger
understanding of Commodity Management as we define
it with SAP (8%) cited behind Ion Openlink (10%), and
other commodity management platforms such as Eka,
Gen10, Ion TriplePoint, Brady (Fintech) also noted.
Despite that, many of the 21 solutions named would not
be commodity management platforms by our definition.
Just under 40% suggested no vendor was the leader in
this category (Figure 51).
Asia-Pacific
For the first time, we received a large number of
responses to the survey from the Asia-Pacific region –
the most rapidly growing geographic region in terms
of CTRM technology spending. The majority of these
responses came from China (35%), Singapore (32%)
andJapan(13%)andgenerally,wehadgoodgeographic
coverage in the region (Figure 52).
Almost half of these respondents described themselves
as working with trader/merchant firms, with mining
firms (16%) and refining/petrochemical (9%) also quite
well represented. End-users also formed the majority
at around 80%. 18% were identified as consultants or
Systems Integrators (Figure 53).
The Asia-Pacific CTRM market is quite immature in
comparison to the North American and European
market regions, and overall does not necessarily have

a long history of working with CTRM vendors (though
some countries have longer histories than others). It
is also quite a difficult market for software vendors to
tackle remotely, requiring significant investment in local
sales offices, language-specific resources and a local
support teams. The regions uneven history with the
vendor supplied CTRM solutions and relative market
immaturity is also reflected in the data in which a larger
proportion of respondents could only name a single
vendor or just a couple of vendors (48% versus for
example just 21% in the North American data).
Brand Awareness
In our sample of Asia-Pacific respondents, the most well-
known vendor is Enuit with almost 60% of respondents
citing the company; and reflecting the effort that firm has
made in developing a local presence in the region (and
particularly in China) over the last several years. The Ion
brands follow along with Eka, a vendor that originates
in India and has a long history in this market as well.
Fendahl is another vendor that has established itself
across this market region and benefits in good brand
recognition. In total, Asia-Pacific respondents name 25
vendors. The data also indicates that many of the top
European and North American based vendors are also
relatively well known in this market including Amphora,
Brady, FIS and all of the Ion brands.
Further examination of the data, however, shows that
Enuit’s strong brand awareness primarily originates in
China where just over 50% of all respondents named
Enuit versus 11% for Ion Openlink – the next most
recognized brand according to Chinese respondents.
Furthermore, a high number of Enuit customers
responded as 45% of Asian-Pacific respondents who
said they had a CTRM system installed, said that system
was Enuit, versus 15% for the next most installed

vendor, Ion Allegro. Despite this high response rate from
Enuit customers, it’s clear that Enuit has developed a
very strong brand awareness even among non-users in
this region.
Adjusting brand awareness totals to remove users of a
solution, then things change a bit and Enuit (35%) falls
to second behind Ion Openlink (38%) but ahead of Ion
Allegro (29%), indicating that Enuit has developed a
very strong brand awareness in the Asia-Pacific market,
along with the various ION sub-brands and Eka. Fendahl
and Brady also showed relatively strong recognition in
this region.
In terms of the installed base in the sample, almost 45%
said that they didn’t have any solution installed, 25%
used Enuit and around 7% used Ion Allegro. (Figure
56) Enuit’s installed base representation in the sample
is even larger than that of all Ion’s products combined
(Ion Consolidated on the chart).
In this relatively immature region, usage of a solution
seems to dictate pretty much all categories - meaning
that respondents were highly likely to vote only for
their installed solution across the board. As such, when
examining the data from of our survey in this region, the
results do need to be carefully interpreted as the large
number of Enuit users responding does position them
as the perceived leader in all categories, followed in
almost all categories by the consolidated Ion products.
Perceived Market
Leadership
Enuit’s strength in this market is clearly demonstrated
in that the company is perceived as the named market
leader by the Asia-Pacific respondents (32%), though
a slightly larger number felt there was no market
leader (35%). Ion brands also rank highly in leadership
perceptions, but even on a consolidated basis, those Ion
brands still trail Enuit as the perceived market leader in
the region.

Oil and Products
Enuit was seen as market leader by 36% of the
Asian-Pacific respondents and just over 30% said no
vendor was the leader. The Ion brands follow with Ion
Consolidated being seen by around 29% as the leader.
Fendahl was noted multiple times by the respondents
with Aspen, Comfin and Solaris also receiving notice in
the category.
Natural Gas
In natural gas, 40% of Asia-Pacific respondents saw no
overall leader, while 33% believe it to be Enuit. As in
several other categories, Ion brands are next with Ion
Consolidated being seen as the leader by about 17% of
the respondents. Outside of those two brands, Fendahl,
Comfin, Pioneer and Planlogic were also noted by the
respondents.
Power
For power, Asian-Pacific respondents are unclear as to
who the leader may be with more than half saying no one
was the leader. Enuit was named by around a quarter of
them and Ion brands by about 11%. Fendahl was noted
multiple times and was followed by Brady, Comfin, OATI
and Pioneer.

Ags & Softs
There is even less certainty around ags & softs with
almost 75% saying no vendor was the leader. Enuit
and Ion consolidated brands are essentially tied with
around 7% of the respondents. Fendahl also shows as
a challenger, with Comfin also receiving multiple notes.
Metals
In metals more than half could name no leader, with
approximately one quarter naming Enuit as the leader.
Fendahl slightly trailed the Ion Consolidated brands.
Also receiving mention in metals were the individual
Ion brands, including Openlink, Allegro and Aspect,
followed by Brady and Comfin.
Ores & Concentrates
The situation was largely the same as for metals in ores
& concentrates where Enuit and Fendahl are noted as
leaders by 27% and 8% respectively. Ion brands are
also represented in the results, as was Comfin.

For Software as a Service (Figure 64), Asian-Pacific
respondents appear to have little opinion of leadership
in the category, with Enuit noted as the leader by only
12%. Ion brands and Fendahl were named by fewer still,
and Brady, Comfin and Pioneer were mentioned by one
respondent each.

Risk Management
In the risk management area, almost one third said no
vendor is the leader; however, a slightly lower number
cite Enuit. As with the other categories in the region, Ion
consolidated brands follow Enuit and Fendahl follows
behind. ComFin and Pioneer also received single notes
in risk management.
Implementation
In the category of leader in implementation for the Asia
Pacific region, the picture is very similar, with Enuit noted
by about 34% and followed by the Ion consolidated
brands. However, in the area of implementations,
Fendahl also showed relatively strongly being noted
by slightly less than 10% of respondents. ComFin and
Pioneer were also identified in this category.
Leadership for technical architecture almost mirrored
the results for implementations, with Enuit noted as the
leader by about 31% of the respondents, followed by
Ion consolidated/Openlink. Fendahl. Aspen, Comfin,
Pioneer and SAP rounded out the group with multiple
mentions (Figure 67).

39
Much like many of the other Asia Pacific categories
examined, Enuit was again noted as a leader here.
Though not commonly viewed as a CM application, the
strengthoftheEnuitbranddoesseemtohaveinfluenced
the Asia Pacific based respondents in this category as
well. And much like several other categories, the Ion
consolidated brands rank second with Fendahl making
a relatively strong showing by tying with Ion Openlink.
Aspen and Comfin also received multiple mentions
(Figure 68 shows only those vendors that did receive
multiple mentions in the category).
Brand Awareness
When it comes to simple brand awareness among the
survey’s respondents (Figure 71), it seems that users
(70) were able to name more brands than were the
influencers (59). Among the users, three Ion brands
are the most well-known (Ion Openlink, Ion Allegro and
Ion TriplePoint) followed by FIS, Brady, Eka and SAP.
USERS VERSUS INFLUENCERS
There was enough data to compare responses between users and influencers as well. Users
are about equally weighted in terms of location among the three main regions, while there
are relatively fewer influencers in the Asia-Pacific region. However, as the Asia-Pacific region
responses demonstrate some degree of market immaturity, we must be somewhat cautious
interpreting the results which can be biased by that region’s lesser exposure to a wide range of
vendors.

40
The Influencers positioned FIS in third place, pushing
Ion TriplePoint down. Eka is more widely known among
the influencers, as is Enuit, Pioneer, Gen10 and several
others; whereas Brady is less well known along with
Contigo, Ignite and SAP. Interestingly, the differences
are somewhat smaller when installed base is removed
from the user side, confirming the ‘bias’ that users with
an installed solution bring to the study (that is users will
almost always mention the product they use first in each
category in which they use the product, and often in
unrelated categories as well).
That said, among users, 69% mentioned at least one
Ion brand in the brand awareness section and 77% of
influencers mentioned at least one Ion brand, which is
a relatively insignificant difference and indicative of the
residual strength of those brands consolidated by Ion
over the last several years.
Overall Market
Leadership
In terms of overall leadership perceptions (Figure 72),
it seems that users are less confident than influencers,
with almost a quarter of users saying ‘None’ versus
around 16% of influencers. Other intriguing differences
seem to be that influencers are happy to cite Ion as an
undifferentiated brand whereas users gravitate to the
particular brands more often. Influencers also rank SAP
and Comfin much more highly than users. Users though
more uncertain, also cite more vendors as possible
overall leaders in the market.
It is tempting to see the users as being less certain
than influencers in their views or less informed about
the rapidly changing CTRM landscape. Influencers
appear to be more up-to-date in terms of brands (Ion
versus Openlink, for example) and perhaps also feel
vendor size is more important than users. An obvious
conclusion is that system integrators and consultants
are exposed to a much greater degree to the various
developments in the software market as much of their
businesses are tied to the vendors themselves, either via
direct relationships or simply through the need to have
staff that is knowledgeable on a wide range of products.

Oil & Products
A couple of the trends noted previously appear to persist
throughout the various leadership categories as again,
users (40%) are less certain there is a leader than
influencers (23%) in the oil and products category, and
more cite the consolidated Ion brand than do users. In
fact, the influencers appear to favour all Ion brands over
the users, particularly Ion Openlink which is most often
perceived as the market leader in this category. Again,
users name more vendors adding to the feeling that
they are more uncertain (Note that vendors/products
with just a few responses not included in Figure 73 for
the sake of clarity).
Natural Gas
The same trend continued in natural gas (Figure 74),
where users again appear uncertain as to which product
is the leader, naming many more vendors than did the
influencers and 40% of users saying ‘None’. Influencers
noted Ion and Ion brands most often and potentially at
the expense of many of the emerging vendors.
Power
For power, we observe the same trends where users are
less likely to pick any vendor as the leader and named
many more vendors than the influencer group (for
clarity, not all those vendors are shown in Figure 75).
Influencers again favoured Ion and Ion brands, though
OATI and Contigo also received solid notice in this
category.

Ags & Softs
In the Ags & Softs category, the picture was a bit
different in that Eka received the most notes as a leader
with the influencers, outpacing the Ion brands, though
all trailed the counts for “None” - indicating a fairly high
level of uncertainty in the category. Ion brands continue
to receive notice by both influencers and users, though
users are clearly less certain about that brand in this
category.
Interestingly, the relatively fewer responses from
influencers versus the number of users in this survey
versus what we have seen in past years may be in part
responsible for the apparent loss of awareness and
leader perceptions by Eka in this and other categories.
Influencers do appear to have a much greater awareness
of the Eka brand than do those on the buyer side that
do not use Eka and may be otherwise unfamiliar with
the product/brand. Again, for clarity purposes, Figure
76 only shows those brands/products most often
mentioned by respondents.
Metals
Like for Ags & Softs, both groups appear less confident
in naming a leader but particularly users who cite many
more brands than influencers (not all shown in Figure
77). However, in metals, both types of respondent see
Brady and Enuit as more likely to be the leader than any
Ion brand.

Concentrates
In the concentrates category, both groups are extremely
uncertain about leadership. Though Enuit was slightly
above Brady as the most noted brand by users, Brady
and Fendahl benefited from a stronger sentiment about
leadership among influencers. Besides Brady, Enuit
and Fendahl, the influencers noted SAP, Ion Openlink
and Comfin as having some strength.
In Software as a Service there is little agreement or
certainty over leadership. Not only did Users cite ‘none’
more often than did the influencers, but they also cited
many more candidates (not shown on Figure 76 for
clarity) and noted that group’s leader in the category,
Pioneer, less than 5% of the time. Influencers did
seem somewhat more informed in this category, noting
Molecule, Aspect and Pioneer as the top three named
vendors, though only Molecule could break 10%.
Risk Management
In risk management, as previously discussed, CTRM
vendors were named as opposed to risk analytics
providers. Additionally, there is a good deal of
uncertainty about who may be the leader even among
those CTRM vendors. Users were again more uncertain

than influencers (though not by quite as much in this
category)andcitedmanymorevendors(notallvendors/
product responses shown in Figure 80 for clarity).
Users and influencers also disagreed over who may be
the market leader, with users opting most often for Enuit
by a small margin and influencers commonly naming Ion
Openlink. Again, influencers gravitated to Ion and its
brands more than users do.
Implementation
Similar results in Implementation where both groups
lack any certainty and buyers cited many possible
vendors (not included in Figure 81 for clarity). With
Enuit’s ranking at the top of the named vendors in this
category, one might suspect that the large number of
Enuit users responding (particularly from the AsiaPac
region) has had significant impact on their ranking.
However, the responding influencers actually noted
Enuit at a higher rate than users, helping validate that
company’s position as the named leader in the category.
Technical architecture showed a return to the previously
noted patterns. Users were less certain than influencers
as to leadership here, and named many more vendors as
possible leaders (not all mentions are shown in Figure
82 for clarity), while influencers gravitated toward Ion
and Ion brands.

It is important to remember that ‘None’ is often the
single largest choice of the respondents in a number
of categories and these summary charts simply pick
out the vendors/products most often named by those
respondents that expressed an opinion other than
“None”.
Reviewing the data on a geographic basis does offer
some insights into the developing momentum for
several of the newer vendors that have emerged over
the last 5 or so years. Following are those results by
region, but for this summary, we only identify the top two
cited vendors as there are fewer respondents naming
vendors in each category.
MARKET LEADERSHIP SUMMARY
AgainforCommodityManagementinfluencersappeared
more certain as to whether there is a leader and to who
it may be, than users (figure 83 does not show all user
named vendors for clarity). The influencers favoured a
smaller group of vendors led by Ion brands and SAP,
followed by multiple mentions for Comfin, Enuit and
Igloo.
The table below is a summary of the results of perceived market leadership globally against
the various categories measured, with changes from the 2018 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey
highlighted in italics. There are quite a few changes noted from the previous report; however,
many simply involve the strengthening of the overall Ion brand over its individual sub-brands. But,
in areas like SaaS and Implementation, new vendors are gaining momentum.

North America
North America is the most ‘traditional’ of the regions and
is the one that appears to have moved to using “Ion” over
the individual sub-brands. Particularly notable in this
region is the strong showing of Enuit in implementations
and Molecule (and then Ignite) in SaaS.
Europe
European respondents still favour the Ion sub-brands,
but the consolidated brand is gaining strength. However,
of interest is the strengthening of SAP and some of the
smaller vendors in various categories.

Asia-Pacific
As previously discussed, the Asia Pacific region is
comparatively a very immature market for CTRM
applications and those that have the greatest early
success in any emerging market will enjoy greater name
recognition. When it comes to the vendor landscape,
Enuit’s success in selling to and servicing Asia Pacific
companies (particularly in the Chinese markets) has
positioned the company as the most well-known brand
(and by some distance) among the respondents. It is
notable that Fendahl is in second place across several
categories, indicating that firm has also developed
strong brand awareness in the region.

Those criteria are:
• Multi-commodity
• Multi-currency
• Physical commodity support
• Financial commodity support
• Market/Price risk support
• Credit risk support
• Physical logistics support
• Advanced risk analytics support
• Available in the cloud
• Modern, modular architecture
• Supplied by a top vendor
• Available at a competitive price
• Quality implementation resources available
• Quality vendor support
• Ability to personalize User Interface (UI)
• Regulatory compliance support
• Workflow support
We asked the respondents to rank each as follows:
• Critical to have
• Important to have
• Nice to have
• Unimportant
• Unnecessary
To analyze the results, we scored the responses as
follows:
• Critical to have 3
• Important to have 2
• Nice to have 1
• Unimportant 0
• Unnecessary -1
We also reviewed the results in terms of the response as
in previous years for comparison purposes.
BUYING CRITERIA
The survey tested buying criteria by asking respondents to rank a list of criteria that we test each
time we conduct this survey.

Figure 84 shows summarized composite scores for the
various buying criteria tested in the survey. As noted
on the chart, Physical Commodity Support was ranked
most desirable, while Supplied by a Top Vendor was
ranked least desirable. Three attributes were ranked
closer to Critical (3) than Important (2) overall and they
were Physical Commodity Support, Market/Price Risk
Support and Financial Commodity Support. Attributes
ranked “Important” included Quality Vendor Support,
Availability of Implementation Resources, Multi-
currency, Available at a Competitive Price, Physical
Logistics Support, Modern Modular Architecture and
Credit Risk. Only Supplied by a Top Vendor ranked
closest to “Nice to Have”. This appears to show that
buyers are as focused on being able to implement and
support their CTRM systems as they are concerned
about the depth or breadth of system functionality.
Cloud, however, is relatively unimportant along with a
Personalizable UI.
OVERALL BUYING CRITERIA RESULTS
1.29
1.51
1.62
1.77
1.84
1.88
2.02
2.06
2.06
2.21
2.33
2.35
2.38
2.45
2.52
2.54
2.63
Supplied by a Top Vendor
Cloud
Personalizable UI
Advanced Risk Analytics
Regulatory Compliance
Workflow
Credit Risk
Physical Logistics
Modern, modular Architecture
Competitive Price
Multi-Currency
Multi-Commodity
Implementation Resources
Quality Vendor Support
Financial Commodity Support
Market/Price Risk
Physical Commodity Support
Chart 84 - Buying Criteria - Global Survey
Ranked
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Supplied by a top vendor
Personalizable UI
Cloud
Workflow
Competitive Price
Credit Risk
Physical Logistics
Multi-Commodity
Multi-Currency
Market/Price Risk
Figure 85 - Buying Criteria Global
Critical Important Nice Unimportant Unnecessary

If we look simply at the responses and rank them based
on criticality as in previous years, we can see that the
order of some criteria have changed, most notably
Available from a Top Vendor which is less important
in this most recent survey, while risk analytics and
regulatory functionality are somewhat more important.
We can also look at the geographic regions to see
how the buying criteria may vary. For the mature North
American market, the results are broadly similar both in
order and in-depth of feeling about the criteria.
In Europe, multi-currency capabilities (not surprisingly)
takes the top slot. In this region, almost every user is
dealing in largely Dollar-denominated commodities
and managing local currencies (beyond the Euro) for
their operations across the continent and other regions
around the globe. These multiple currencies can present
a significant financial challenge and increase bottom-
line risks. Beyond multi-currency, workflow also appears
to be more valued in Europe than in other regions.
In the less mature Asia-Pacific market (Figure 88),
market/price risk is most highly ranked, but the relative
ranking of the other criteria remain largely the same as
the other regions.
1.34
1.43
1.71
1.83
1.86
1.89
2.02
2.10
2.15
2.34
2.46
2.49
2.53
2.57
2.60
2.61
2.79
Cloud
Personalizable UI
Workflow
Credit Risk
Multi-Currency
Competitive Price
Physical Logistics
Multi-Commodity
Market/Price Risk
Figure 86 - Buying Criteria - North America
1.13
1.50
1.57
1.65
1.76
1.94
1.98
1.98
2.18
2.20
2.40
2.41
2.50
2.50
2.56
2.59
2.70
Cloud
Personalizable UI
Physical Logistics
Workflow
Credit Risk
Competitive Price
Multi-Commodity
Market/Price Risk
Multi-Currency
Figure 87 - Buying Criteria - Europe
1.50
1.65
1.68
1.72
1.86
1.88
1.90
2.10
2.10
2.17
2.17
2.19
2.26
2.38
2.44
2.61
2.64
Personalizable UI
Cloud
Workflow
Multi-Commodity
Physical Logistics
Multi-Currency
Credit Risk
Competitive Price
Market/Price Risk
Figure 88 - Buying Criteria - Asia Pacific

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8 2 0 2 0
Figure 89 - Brand Awareness Through Time
Ion TriplePoint Ion Openlink Ion Allegro FIS Brady Eka
OATI Amphora Ion Aspect SAP Ion Enuit
This is likely due to a number of factors, including:
1. The larger number of responses and greater
geographical representation. In the less mature
Asia-Pacific region where we got around 1/3rd of
responses, many respondents, particularly users,
recognize fewer brands meaning that averages for
each brand will be lower overall.
2. The Ion factor – Many of the Ion sub-brands have
declined as respondents, particularly in North
America, start using the Ion name instead. The
overall Ion brand is now mentioned by 11% instead
of the sub-brands. However, that in of itself does
not fully offset an overall fall off in Ion sub-brand
recognition.
3. More respondents are mentioning other brands
like SAP and Enuit, for example, as the market
overall becomes more familiar with more vendors
and products. Part of the decline in larger company
brands is partially offset by increasing strength in
small vendor brands.
BRAND AWARENESS HISTORICAL
TRENDS
We can look at brand awareness (that is “What E/CTRM companies/products are you aware
of?”) over several years. Many brands, particularly the top 6 most recognized in previous surveys,
saw declining recognition in this year’s survey versus those previous surveys.
51

Though the awareness results from one survey to
another can be impacted by the demographics of the
respondent group, the relative ranking of vendors/
products in any given year can be informative. Looking
at the data over time and even between survey periods,
other notable trends can be discerned:
• The progressive decline of Ion TriplePoint continues
as that brand fades post-acquisition by Ion,
• The higher relative fall-off in Brady brand vs other
most recognized brands is likely, at least in part, a
result of it being a predominantly European brand
for things like energy meaning that it suffers in
North America and Asia-Pacific markets from lower
awareness,
• FIS appears to decline in market recognition;
however, the vast majority of respondents
mentioning FIS may actually use the name SunGard
or the product name and we have substituted those
for FIS.
• Though Eka, like the other most recognized brands
in the top 6 group fell somewhat from the last survey
to this current one, the decline was less than the
others in that top 6 groups, indicating it may have
actually improved its brand recognition versus the
others in that group.

The 2020 VPS provides many interesting data points
around vendor brand strength and perceptions of
leadership. From a historical perspective, it seems many
more brands are more widely known in 2020 than in
the past, and the dominance of the better-known brands
does seem to have weakened somewhat. It is also
apparent that in almost every category, the users see no
real, dominant leader instead pointing to ‘None’ much
of the time. Though this is perhaps not surprising as the
market for CTRM products is very diverse, there does
seem to be an opportunity for any number of companies
to build brand leadership dominance in a range of
commodities or market regions.
This year’s survey also suggests that big does not
necessarily equal leader. Ion does, of course, enjoy
the largest mindshare but not the dominance its size
may initially suggest. In part, this is likely due to the
technology shift we’ve seen where more companies are
deploying smaller scale cloud and web-enabled CTRM.
In the end, this is just a survey of many individual
perceptions and it is possible to push the analysis too far
and read into the results conclusions that may or may not
be valid. Though we gathered a larger and more global
response in this latest survey, it should be remembered
that this survey and analysis does rely on but a small
subset of total users and influencers and, as such, may
not be statistically rigorous, particularly as that term
would apply for many of the niche categories where the
responses of “none” or “don’t know” dominate with 50%
or more and no vendor achieved any real separation over
the others in that category.
SUMMARY

ABOUT SILVER SPONSOR ENUIT LLC
Enuit was founded in 2008 with a single goal in
mind: To bring to market affordable, functional trade
management software. Entrade is all of this and
more. And, it really works. It can help your company
track its transactions through the entire deal life cy-
cle: From done deal through sent bill.
ENTRADE® provides value to traders and the front
office. It’s deal blotters can be used to test profit-
ability on potential deals. It has a workspace, called
sandboxes, which produce Flash PNL reports to de-
termine the effect of new deals to an overall portfo-
lio. It gives users a tool to check end-of-day profits.
And, it prints deal recaps and confirmation letters.
Our Front Office capabilities give each trader a
sandbox to value and analyze their trading exposure
to market movements. Traders can mark positions to
market and calculate value at risk at any time with-
out affecting anyone else or company operations.
ENTRADE® has interfaces with ICE, DME, and
CME; and, it can receive updates to settlement and
forward curves through price aggregators, such as
GlobalView and Bloomberg.
Our Middle office capabilities makes it possible to
track everything from inventory volumes, aggrega-
tion of costs, value at risk, ancillary costs, the qual-
ity of product, and then tie that data to respective
counterparties, contracts and portfolios with an
advanced analytical engine which allows you to de-
compose a trades exposure and risk by its individual
pricing components.
And for back-office capabilities includes invoice
management and remittance statements for fees
and treasury management, generates invoices and
remittance statements for trades; including all asso-
ciated fees and costs. It stores general ledger codes
and can send journal entries directly to your General
Ledger system and includes a tax module capable
of calculating taxes of various forms and varieties.
For more information, visit www.enuit.com

ABOUT
Commodity
Technology
Advisory
LLC
Commodity Technology Advisory is the leading analyst organization covering the ETRM and
CTRM markets. We provide the invaluable insights into the issues and trends affecting the
users and providers of the technologies that are crucial for success in the constantly evolving
global commodities markets.
Patrick Reames and Gary Vasey head our team, whose combined 60-plus years in the energy
and commodities markets, provides depth of understanding of the market and its issues that is
unmatched and unrivaled by any analyst group.
For more information, please visit:
www.comtechadvisory.com
ComTech Advisory also hosts the CTRMCenter, your online portal with news and views about
commodity markets and technology as well as a comprehensive online directory of software
and services providers.
Please visit the CTRMCenter at:
www.ctrmcenter.com
19901 Southwest Freeway
Sugar Land TX 77479
+1 281 207 5412
Prague, Czech Republic
+420 775 718 112
ComTechAdvisory.com
Email: info@comtechadvisory.com

2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis

Similar to 2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis (20)

More from CTRM Center

More from CTRM Center (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis