Gartner has recognized our vision and execution for the tenth consecutive year, positioning Microsoft as a Leader in the Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms. Also, for second year in row, Microsoft is placed furthest in vision within the Leaders quadrant.
Magic Quadrant (MQ) is a series of market research reports published by IT consulting firmGartner that rely on proprietary qualitativedata analysis methods to demonstrate market trends, such as direction, maturity and participants.[1] Their analyses are conducted for several specific technology industries and are updated every 1–2 years.
Rating[edit]
Gartner rates vendors upon two criteria: completeness of vision[1] and ability to execute.[1] Using a methodology which Gartner does not disclose[verification needed], these component scores lead to a vendor position in one of four quadrants:
- Leaders - Vendors in the Leaders quadrant have the highest composite scores for their Completeness of Vision and Ability to Execute. A vendor in the Leaders quadrant has the market share, credibility, and marketing & sales capabilities needed to drive the acceptance of new technologies. These vendors demonstrate a clear understanding of market needs, they are innovators and thought leaders, and they have well-articulated plans that customers and prospects can use when designing their infrastructures and strategies. In addition, they have a presence in the five major geographical regions, consistent financial performance, and broad platform support.
- Challengers - A vendor in the Challengers quadrant participates in the market and executes well enough to be a serious threat to vendors in the Leaders quadrant. They have strong products, as well as sufficiently credible market position and resources to sustain continued growth. Financial viability is not an issue for vendors in the Challengers quadrant, but they lack the size and influence of vendors in the Leaders quadrant.
- Visionaries - A vendor in the Visionaries quadrant delivers innovative products that address operationally or financially important end-user problems at a broad scale, but has not yet demonstrated the ability to capture market share or sustainable profitability. Visionary vendors are frequently privately held companies and acquisition targets for larger, established companies. The likelihood of acquisition often reduces the risks associated with installing their systems.
- Niche Players - Vendors in the Niche Players quadrant are often narrowly focused on specific market or vertical segments. This quadrant may also include vendors that are adapting their existing products to enter the market under consideration, or larger vendors having difficulty developing and executing on their vision.
Criticism[edit]
It has been pointed out that the criteria for the Magic Quadrant cater more towards investors and large vendors than towards buyers.[2]
Much of the criticism is focused on the lack of disclosure of the money received from the vendors it rates, raising conflict of interest issues. Also a source of criticism is the lack of disclosure on the vendor's component scores and the lack of transparency in Gartner's methodology used to derive the vendor's position on the MQ map.
The Magic Quadrant, and analysts in general, also skew the market: according to research,[3] by applying their methodologies to describe a market, they change that marketplace to fit their tools.
Another criticism is that open source vendors are not considered sufficiently by analysts like Gartner, as has been published in an online discussion between a VP from Talend and a German Research VP from Gartner.[4]
Gartner was the target of a federal lawsuit (filed May 29, 2009) from software vendor, ZL Technologies, challenging the “legitimacy” of Gartner’s Magic Quadrant rating system.[5] Gartner filed a motion to dismiss by claiming First Amendment protection since it contends that its MQ reports contain 'pure opinion,' which legally means opinions which are not based on fact.[6] The court threw out the ZL case because it lacked a specific complaint.[7] That decision was upheld on appeal.[8]
Analyzed markets[edit]
Analyzed markets include:[9]
Magic Quadrant Name | References | Published | Link Verified |
---|---|---|---|
Application Infrastructure for Systematic SOA Application Projects | [10] | 21 Oct 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Application Performance Management | [11] | 16 Aug 2012 | 28 Dec 2013 |
Business Intelligence Platforms | [12][dead link] | 29 Jan 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Business Process Analysis Tools | [13] | 22 Feb 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Business Process Management Suites | |||
Client Management Tools | [14] | 31 Jan 2012 | 27 Mar 2012 |
Communications Outsourcing and Professional Services, Worldwide | [15] | 03 Mar 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Continuous Controls Monitoring | [16] | 23 Mar 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Corporate Performance Management Suites | [17] | 25 Jan 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
[18] | 09 Apr 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 | |
CRM Multichannel Campaign Management | [19] | 13 May 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Data Integration Tools | [20] | 25 Nov 2009 | 28 Nov 2010 |
[21] | 28 Jan 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 | |
Data Center Outsourcing and Utility Services, Europe | [22] | 27 Apr 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
E-Commerce | |||
Energy Trading and Risk Management Platforms | [23] | 14 Apr 2011 | 11 Apr 2012 |
Enterprise Content Management | [24] | 16 Nov 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Enterprise LAN (Global) | [25] | 10 Jun 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Enterprise Marketing Management | [26] | 14 Oct 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Enterprise Single Sign-On | [27] | 15 Sep 2009 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Enterprise Wireless E-Mail Software Market | [28] | 10 Jun 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Field Service Management | [29] | 17 Oct 2012 | 09 Oct 2013 |
Global Network Service Providers | [30] | 08 Mar 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Help DeskOutsourcing, Europe | [31] | 20 Jul 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Horizontal Portals | [32] | 03 Sep 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Integrated Workplace Management Systems | [33] | 31 Jul 2008 | 24 Jan 2011 |
Integration Service Providers | [34] | 20 Nov 2009 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Integrated Software Quality Suites | [35] | 31 Jan 2011 | 16 Mar 2011 |
ITSM IT Service Management | [36] | 20 Aug 2012 | 29 Dec 2013 |
IT Project and Portfolio Management | [37] | 07 Jun 2010 | 28 Nov 2010 |
Managed File Transfer | [38] | 18 Sept 2009 | 22 Sept 2009 |
Managed Security Service Providers, North America | [39] | 16 Apr 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Master Data Management for Customer Data | [40] | 16 Jun 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Master Data Management for Product Data | [41] | 09 Jul 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
MFPs and Printers | [42] | 09 Dec 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Midmarket and Tier 2-Oriented ERP for Product-Centric Companies | [43] | 04 Jun 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Single-Instance ERP for Product-Centric Midmarket Companies | [44] | 27 June 2012 | 27 June 2012 |
Network Access Control | [45] | 27 Mar 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Network Configuration and Change Management | |||
Network Intrusion-prevention system | [46] | 04 Apr 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Operational Database Management Systems | [47] | 21 Oct 2013 | 21 Oct 2013 |
Outage Management Systems | [48] | 08 Jun 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Product Life Cycle Management | [49] | ||
Ruggedized Handheld-Computer | [50] | ||
Sales Force Automation | [51] | 28 Jul 2010 | 17 Aug 2010 |
Security Information and Event Management | [52] | 29 May 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
SMB Multifunction Firewalls | [53] | 10 Jul 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Social Software | [54] | 31 Oct 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Softswitch Architecture | [55] | ||
Software Change & Configuration Management (Distributed Platforms) | [56] | 26 Mar 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
[57] | 11 Dec 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 | |
Transportation Management Systems | [58] | 13 Apr 2010 | 29 Sep 2011 |
Unified Communications | [59] | 12 Sep 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Utilities Customer Information Systems | [60] | 15 Jun 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
User Provisioning | [61] | 15 Aug 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Video Telepresence Solutions | [62] | ||
WAN Optimization Controllers | [63] | 30 Jun 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Warehouse Management Systems | [64] | 06 Apr 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Web Conferencing | [65] | ||
Web Content Management | [66] | 05 Aug 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Web Fraud Detection | [67] | 18 Jun 2013 | |
Web Hosting and Hosted Cloud SystemInfrastructure Services (On Demand) | 02 Jul 2009 | 08 Aug 2009 | |
Wireless LAN Infrastructure | [68] | 26 Nov 2008 | 08 Aug 2009 |
Wired and Wireless LAN Access Infrastructure | [69] | 26 June 2014 | 4 December 2014 |
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ abc'Magic Quadrants and MarketScopes: How Gartner Evaluates Vendors Within a Market'. Gartner.com. February 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-27.
- ^'Looking beyond the magic quadrant to find the nitty-gritty'. Real Story Group. 2009-08-07. Retrieved 2009-08-08.
- ^'Why IT Vendors Should Take Industry Analysts (More) Seriously | Institute of Industry Analyst Relations'. Analystrelations.org. 2012-09-26. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
- ^'Vendor complains in a very public blog post about Gartner's Data Integration Magic Quadrant'. Sagecircle.wordpress.com. 2009-12-29. Retrieved 2009-08-08.
- ^'Is shooting on the referee productive? | Institute of Industry Analyst Relations'. Analystrelations.org. 2009-10-21. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
- ^'ZL v Gartner Complaint'. Scribd.com. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
- ^'E-mail Archiving Vendor Takes on Gartner's Magic Quadrant'. EnterpriseStorageForum.com. 2009-11-13. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
- ^'Unpublished Dispositions (Memoranda)'. Ca9.uscourts.gov. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
- ^'Magic Quadrants and MarketScopes'. Gartner.com. 2009-08-03. Retrieved 2009-08-08.
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article163/article163.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1BRHACN&ct=120817&st=sb
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article121/article121.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/softwareag/volume2/article3/article3.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1942I7P&ct=120202&st=sb
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/csc/vol3/article9/article9.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article125/article125.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article120/article120.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol3/article2/article2.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/sas/vol7/article2/article2.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/sas/vol6/article5/article5.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol13/article5/article5.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/hpes/article7/article7.html
- ^http://www.tpt.com/commoditymanagementblog/Home/tabid/41/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Gartner-2011-ETRM-Magic-Quadrant.aspx
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol14/article8/article8.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/juniper/vol6/article4/article4.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/sas/vol7/article3/article3.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/passlogix/vol2/article1/article1.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol10/article13/article13.html
- ^http://toatech.com/gartner-magic-quadrant-field-service-management/
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/att/vol8/article1/article1.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/fujitsu/201425.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol13/article10/article10.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=158057
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/e2open/172249.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microfocus/vol4/article1/article1.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1BS56X7&ct=120821&st=sb#dv_1_as_of
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol10/article12/article12.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1184113
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/at&t/vol5/article1/article1.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article78/article78.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article82/article82.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/hp/163288.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol4/article12/article12.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1B4MV8J&ct=120628&st=sg
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#n
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/juniper/vol4/article4/article4.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/doc/2610218/magic-quadrant-operational-database-management
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article76/article76.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#p
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#r
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol10/article18/article18.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/loglogic/article1/article1.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/sonicwall/vol3/article1/article1.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol6/article5/article5.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#s
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol4/article9and10/article9and10.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/citrix/163232.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article129/article129.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol6/article1/article1.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article77/article77.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#u
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#v
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/riverbed/165875.html
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article66/article66.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/it/products/mq/mq_ms.jsp#w
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/oracle/article91/article91.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/magicQuadrants.jsp
- ^http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/merunetworks/163188.html
- ^http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-1WEP20F&ct=140630&st=sb
External links[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magic_Quadrant&oldid=902280922'
Microsoft has delivered intelligent archive and compliance solutions in Microsoft 365 to help customers simplify and streamline technology associated with their traditional archiving systems. Earlier this month, Gartner published their analysis of the Enterprise Information Archiving (EIA) market, the Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Information Archiving Tools, and Microsoft has been recognized as a Leader in the Magic Quadrant.
The Gartner Enterprise Information Archiving Magic Quadrant evaluates software vendors who provide “features such as data reduction across content types, retention management, content indexing, and at least basic tools for eDiscovery and classification.”
Microsoft 365 includes native features for archive, eDiscovery, and governance to help customers adopt the Microsoft cloud for a variety of compliance needs in addition to core productivity capabilities. The in-place archive and compliance platform delivered by Office 365 across Exchange, OneDrive and SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and other applications helps organizations reduce the cost and complexity of meeting archive and discovery requirements.
Customers and analysts alike recognize the benefits of reducing the cost and risk of compliance with an in-place archive and compliance strategy. An in-place archive helps reduce the need for separate archival systems, maintains less copies of business sensitive data, and reduces the burden of validating the security of multiple vendors with your most sensitive data.
With Microsoft 365 customers manage compliance from one central location across email, documents, chats, and channels with confidence that their organization’s retention, deletion, records management, and eDiscovery requirements are met. With one location to manage compliance for the entire suite of capabilities, customers are simplifying processes and management of compliance. In addition to ease of management of integrated solutions, customers are realizing the end user benefits of simplicity and familiar tools, with policies and labels adding little to no additional end user actions to achieve target levels of compliance.
Even more compelling is that Gartner recognized Microsoft 365 for completeness of vision and a rich roadmap of innovation including native review, first party data connectors, and supervision across content types with machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) built in. These innovations, based on customer feedback and pain points with existing solutions, will help organizations to further harness intelligence and automation to manage the data lifecycle of their entire digital estate. In this way, organizations will better be able to harness the dark data in their organization with a unified platform to classify, govern, discover, and be more prepared to achieve more as an organization.
This assessment of Microsoft’s capabilities is further validation of our commitment to our customers, and recognition of the continued leadership demonstrated by Microsoft. Earlier this fall, we shared a bit more about out latest innovations at Microsoft Ignite; take a look at that content for the latest on product and roadmap.
To learn more about Enterprise Information Archiving, visit our website, download our Data Governance and GDPR white paper, and read your own copy of the Gartner Information Archiving Magic Quadrant.
To learn more about Microsoft’s commitment to compliance and privacy, as well as upcoming product innovations, register for the upcoming Championing privacy rights to drive differentiation webcast.
This graphic was published by Gartner, Inc. as part of a larger research document and should be evaluated in the context of the entire document. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product, or service depicted in its research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.