a. In SAP / PI, Mapping in general is more difficult and time consuming whereas in EDISPHERE it is very simple, quick and more robust with easy to user interfaces.
b. In SAP / PI, need to use adapters to convert non-XML files and this is not only complex but time-consuming and config differs per adapter type. Whereas, EDISPHERE is any-to-any in its mapping capabilities. It has native support for mapping / converting all file formats (no need for 3rd party adapters), including X12, EDIFACT, IDOCs, XML, JSON, Flat-files, etc.; and can also map directly to databases.
c. Unlike SAP / PI, EDISPHERE can merge / map multiple SAP IDOCs into one output file in the format desired by the trading partner.
d. In SAP / PI, Errors / failures – needs to be explicitly configured per interface. In EDISPHERE, comprehensive data validation is automatically built-in.
e. In SAP / PI, Monitoring and tracing of files is time-consuming and difficult. Whereas, EDISPHERE compressively logs and provides advance search facility to trace the file. EDISPHERE can notify the errors via email, pinpointing the error in the input file, while is also attaching the input file in the email, which helps in taking corrective steps from the Administrator’s system directly rather than having to fetch the input file from the production system.
f. In SAP / PI, the concept of queues can lead to incorrect and / or missing mapping if not done correctly and tested thoroughly across all possible scenarios. No such problem in EDISPHERE. It has a very easy to use user interface for mapping. EDISPHERE’s unique productivity features like Analyzer, Test Data Generator, and Simulator (debugging tool for mapping problems) helps in producing highly robust implementations, very quickly. i.e. Besides saving time and money, your implementation is rock solid.
g. EDISPHERE deployment and support feature, Implementation Kit, helps in taking backup of all Implementations in one click, and deploy it on another system. This same tool is used as a vehicle to exchange partner specific implementation for deployment and support.
h. EDISPHERE support mapping in both request direction and response direction in the same web service (synchronous) call. The payload can be XML, JSON or any file format.
i. In SAP /PI, the recurring cost of supporting SAP / PI implementation is very high compared to EDISPHERE, which requires fewer people to manage EDISPHERE, the implementations in EDISPHERE can be carried out more quickly and more robustly than in SAP / PI. The support cost directly from the SAP / PI vendor is very high compared to support cost from EDISPEHRE vendor.
j. In SAP / PI managing Trading Partners and Agreements is difficult, presentation of objects makes it much more difficult to search for a specific interface and all related objects. Whereas, in EDISPHERE this is nicely grouped by Sender and agreement on Collaborator.
k. In SAP / PI, in-depth knowledge of an interface is needed when searching for messages on monitoring whereas on EDISPHERE messages can be nicely viewed by user-defined folders.
l. In SAP / PI, there are reports of SFTP adapter (and possibly some other adapters also) not recovering by itself if there are connection issues, which builds up the files in the SFTP folder. No such issue in EDISPHERE.
