Jitender Aswani

Jitender Aswani
Contributor since: 2012
Yes, I have looked at Tableau's ASP (Average Sale Price). It used to be low but has steadily moved up as they started selling more user licenses per sale. The "land and grab" or "seed and harvest" strategy Tableau has followed is not new. You are right, QLIK did it too. QLIK is enterprise ready but there is more competition when selling to IT so land and expand strategy QLIK followed will help but you have fierce competitors like IBM, Oracle, SAP and MSFT. This most likely will be Tableau's struggle as well.
I strongly disagree that Tableau shouldn't be compared to Splunk. Splunk is the right proxy for Tableau, same market, same revenue growth trajectory, same approach to solving analytics solution. They may differ in who they sell their software to, IT vs Line of Business. That is it! They both are great companies and are providing tools to solve Business Analytics.
Yes, the Analytics market is huge - $38 billion in 2013 (Source: IDC). There is a mad-rush to capitalize on this opportunity from incumbents (large vendors - IBM, ORCL, MSFT), challengers (Tableau, QlikView) and companies from HADOOP eco-system. Everyone wants to mine the BigData Mountain and generate both horizontal opportunities (tableau like) and vertical opportunities (analytical apps - like SAS and other companies). There is a room for everyone but not everyone will become the next Tableau.
Love the analysis - there is no E so no PE based comparison, however, I would think that these companies should be compared purely based on revenue and revenue growth. EBIDTA comparison may (please note "may") introduces weaknesses in the relative valuation.
Good Analysis Paul. Purely based on the numbers, one could come to a conclusion similar to yours. However, in another article here on SeekingAlpha, I discussed this point using few companies as examples that it is not just about numbers. See here:
Apple, IBM, SAP, And HP: Not Just Numbers - Company's Vision, Strategy, And Goals Matter ( http://goo.gl/jgcTA )
I agree with couple of other comments that it is about future and winning your customers' loyalty.
Well said carlson73. thanks for sharing your comments.
Barring any major macro events including fiscal cliffs, the IT market is expected to do well as per leading analyst firms so SAP, IBM and ORCL should do well but my focus was on what relative valuation investors are willing to apply on these companies. Thanks for your comment.
If one requires the R script (program) I built to gather some of the statistics, it can be found here on this technical blog: http://bit.ly/T7VB92
Well, not that simple, AAPL, SAP, IBM have a pretty good track record, now the vision company shares with investors have to be believable and should subscribe to a market trend, no matter how far that trend is in the future. I use SpaceX as an example, investors bought that vision even though it was very difficult and expensive to achieve and very futuristic. Nonetheless, there has to be a vision, a strategy road-map and some goals to track that vision.
Great response SidSilver and I would agree with some of your observations. AAPL is more than consumer electronics (and software) company. It is a technology company to sum it up. Consumers stayed with Sony for a very long term before moving on to other companies because Sony adopted a milking strategy. With iPhone5, I felt that AAPL is also starting to adopt it and with iPad mini, for the first time I felt that AAPL is reacting, instead of a category innovator. These trends are not healthy so investors would want to hear a strategy because the visionary Steve Jobs is not at the helm anymore. Thank you.
Thank you vallies for your comment. I am not aware of that. But to your point on Data Analytics, IBM is very serious, actually $14B serious, I did a blog earlier - IBM - Analytics is a very serious priority! How serious? $14B serious!. Here is the link: http://bit.ly/W7oU1r
Thanks for your comment. Again, I want to separate consumers from investors. They base their investment (and purchasing) decisions based on whole different set of factors.
Thanks for your comments. I will buy #1 as an investor (cloud is an example). Investors and consumers base their decision on different philosophies. CROX is an example that comes to my mind. I love Crocs but would I buy their share, I don't know. Between IBM and HP, IBM has been more consistent, stable and quietly focusing on super execution. HPQ has been in the public eye for all the wrong reasons. HPQ's core business are showing signs of obsolescence. Why would MSFT come up with Surface tablet otherwise?
On your last point and staying in the hypothetical world, the sales multiple on two companies is different because investors believe that sales for IBM are more sticky and will likely repeat next year. For HP, who knows, this may be the last hypothetical contract and they are getting squeezed from all sides by customers, vendors and partners just because market thinks that they are weak so profitability will suffer.
Comments left by Holger (http://bit.ly/RN39gM)
Nice work and interesting comparison.
3 Annotations:
(1) CRM was successful with 'guerilla' installs. Sales reps and small teams would move to salesforce instead of walking into a Staples and buy Goldmine, Act!, Saleslogix etc. Paid out of the expense budget. HCM hasn't achieved this viral aspect yet - HR managers don't do this... yet. Rypple is one of the few exceptions and no surprise CRM acquired them.
(2) WDAY elected to build their tech stack from the ground up vs. CRM relied heavily on outside providers (e.g. Oracle) initially. This explains 30-50% more developers at WDAY.
(3) WDAY sold a lot to previous PSFT customers and where their CEOs had good connections. They also aimed at large companies to get the seats they needed to show high user numbers. Was / is a sales strategy.