ITG: DB2 Costs are 36% Lower than Oracle Database
International Technology Group (ITG) just completed a study of database-related costs. In this study, they interviewed several companies to formulate profiles for a telecommunications company, a financial services company, and a retail company. They then determined the database-related hardware, software, storage, and staff needs for these profiles. They base their projections on information gathered from organizations that use Oracle Database and DB2, together with “street pricing” information. ITG claim that:
…use of DB2 9.7 results in combined three-year costs for database software, disk and tape storage systems, servers and personnel that average 36 percent less than those for use of Oracle 11g…
Here is a nice chart that captures their findings for each of the tree profiles:
You can read the full report at VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM DB2 9.7: Cost Savings Potential Compared to Oracle Database 11g.
Conor O'Mahony's Database Diary 
[…] A recent study by ITG, DB2 9.7 costs were shown to be 36% less than Oracle. […]
Triton Consulting » Blog Archive » Business Benefits of DB2 9.7
August 13, 2009 at 11:24 am
A study by International Technology Group… an analyst that doesn’t have a website, that uses an email address @pacbell.net, and whose address is in Village Court Shopping Center – a strip mall with Edward’s Pipe & Tobacco Shop and 123 Acupuncture Clinic?
Seriously?
sapdba
May 28, 2010 at 10:14 pm
This is Brian Jeffery, Managing Director of the International Technology Group – the analyst firm referred to by the “SAP DBA” poster.
First, let me correct the “strip mall” reference. 4546 El Camino Real is a large property that contains a number of buildings, including a separate office complex in which we are located. We are in Suite 230 in this complex. You are welcome to visit.
We have been in business since 1983, and our track record is long-established and well-known. Our clients have included some of the world’s largest corporations and public sector organizations. Some examples are given below.
We have always been a small, specialized company built around a group of highly skilled and experienced professionals. Our focus is on providing in-depth analysis based on documented research of actual end-user installations. In our entire history, we have never retracted any set of results.
I would draw the analogy of a law firm. There are many companies with large numbers of lawyers. But the best are typically partnerships with small numbers of top players.
I would be pleased to answer any substantive questions about the content of the report, and invite you to use this blog to initiate a dialog on this subject.
Seriously.
– BJ
ITG Background
The International Technology Group (ITG), established in 1983, is an independent research and management consulting firm specializing in information technology (IT) investment strategy, cost/benefit metrics, infrastructure studies, deployment tactics, business alignment and financial analysis.
ITG was an early innovator and pioneer in developing total cost of ownership (TCO) and return on investment (ROI) processes and methodologies. In 2004, the firm received a Decade of Education Award from the Information Technology Financial Management Association (ITFMA), the leading professional association dedicated to education and advancement of financial management practices in end-user IT organizations.
The firm has undertaken more than 100 major consulting projects, released approximately 160 management reports and white papers, and delivered nearly 1,800 briefs and presentations to individual clients, user groups, industry conferences and seminars throughout the world.
Clients include a cross section of IT end users in the private and public sectors representing multinational corporations, industrial companies, financial institutions, service organizations, educational institutions, federal and state government agencies as well as IT system suppliers, software vendors and service firms.
U.S. federal government clients have included agencies within the Department of Defense, (e.g. DISA), Department of Transportation (e.g. FAA) and Department of Treasury (e.g. U.S. Mint).
Brian Jeffery
May 30, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Yes, I would love to discuss your report. And sure, we can do that here, since I guess you have no website or blog of your own, and, curiously, I can’t seem to find any of your many prior reports or white papers to look at for background.
Let me start by saying that I am biased towards neither database or vendor. I don’t particularly like dealing with Oracle, the company, so I would certainly like to see someone knock Oracle off their high-horse, but I haven’t seen any evidence yet that DB2 is the one that will be able to do that. Oracle, technology-wise, is years ahead of every other relational database these days, and I don’t see an end to that any time soon. I do watch with interest the non-relational technologies, and there is much there that shows promise.
My biggest concern with your report is that factual evidence is lacking. You make many claims in your report that are not substantiated within your report. Are they true? As a database professional, I would argue that they are not. But you have provided no evidence either way to refute that.
You talk about higher compression rates with DB2 than Oracle, but give no evidence to support this. Oracle claims similar levels of compression to DB2. If they’re wrong, you have not shown why.
You talk about higher CPU utilization with compression for Oracle, but give no evidence to support this. If it is to be believed that “many users find performance degradation at higher levels of compression,” then it should be easy enough to document this, yet you have not even attempted to do so.
You talk about 25-35% higher DBA time for Oracle than DB2, but give no evidence to support this, other than an in-passing reference to an increase for Oracle in the “amount of time spent on comparatively low value repetitive tasks.” What tasks are these? Explain them to me. I know of few low-value repetitive tasks that cannot be automated, with either platform.
You talk about higher levels of performance for XML operations in DB2, but give no evidence to support this.
You mention licensing cost comparisons between DB2 and Oracle, but give no evidence to support this.
You go on at length about automation features of DB2, but don’t mention Oracle automation features at all.
You take your previously stated assumptions about lower storage (due to compression) and less server hardware (due to alleged higher performance for DB2), and translate those into reduced costs for DB2, but you can’t translate unsubstantiated assumptions into dollar amounts. Not with credibility, anyway.
For your cost calculations, you add Oracle’s OEM packs to the Oracle costs, but don’t add DB2 Performance Expert to the DB2 costs. So, in these options, you have significantly increased the management and diagnostic capabilities of Oracle over DB2 via add-on costs. The assumption to the average reader here would be that DB2 has all of these capabilities delivered, but it does not.
Well, that’s a start, anyway.
sapdba
June 1, 2010 at 11:47 am
This Brian Jeffery again.
First, let me deal with your somewhat repetitious comments on availability of ITG reports, blogs etc. Try using Google.
Second, as far as factual evidence is concerned, we draw upon documented user experiences. This was explained in the report.
The use of a focused sample enables more in-depth and reliable data to be obtained than is the case for “generic” surveys based on random telephone or e-mail contacts. The demographics of this sample were professionally structured, and are consistent with broader industry experience – we regularly deal with hundreds of users. We guarantee confidentiality to these. Otherwise they would not talk to us.
Third, the conclusions of the report are not controversial. For example, higher levels of DBA staffing for Oracle relative to DB2, SQL Server and other relational platforms have been documented and commented upon by industry analysts for more than a decade.
As far as pricing is concerned, our assumptions are also based on user experience. However, as an external reference, please note that SAP, which markets both Oracle and DB2 on an OEM basis, charges 11% of SAP Application Value (SAV) for Oracle, and 13% for Oracle with RAC, compared to 8% for DB2.
We also base our statements about higher levels of XML performance, and of data compression, on user experiences. Again, these are not controversial conclusions. These subjects have also been covered by analyst firms, and by the press. For Oracle database compression, please refer to the following:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-management/oracle-database-11g-shoots-moon-041
http://www.infoworld.com/ifwclassic/weblog//tcdaily/archives/2008/06/oracle_advanced.html
In these and other areas, do not base our conclusions on vendor documentation. Actual user environments and workloads vary widely. Vendors inevitably structure tests, and cherry-pick performance results to show their products in a favorable light.
Demand for more realistic assessments has been reflected in the services that we, and other specialist firms, supply.
Let me also respond to your comment about Oracle Diagnostic and Tuning Packs relative to DB2 Performance Expert. Presumably you are not familiar with these products. As we stated in the report, functionality equivalent to these Oracle tools is included in DB2. This is also, incidentally, the case for Microsoft SQL Server.
FYI DB2 Performance Expert has been supplanted in the IBM product line since 2008 by Optim Performance Manager for DB2. You may find details here:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/optim/performance-manager-extended-edition/
Finally, let me pose a question to you. Why do you believe that our conclusions are incorrect? Upon what do you base this?
I look forward to your response.
Brian Jeffery
June 3, 2010 at 9:50 pm
First, Google shows virtually nothing when searching for reports your firm has produced. But I’m sure you already knew that.
Second, it was NOT explained in the report that your findings were based on user feedback. If you can point me to page and paragraph, I will recant, but I’ve looked through the entire report and I find no such references. But even if it were, where is the data? When any other analyst produces such a report based on sample groups, they include charts of respondents’ feedback, indicating actual sample sizes and response counts. There is no such data in your report.
The closest you come is providing three – only three – examples of how DB2 and Oracle would compare in terms of costs in real-world configurations. But of course these examples are based on conclusions already drawn regarding cost and staffing deltas which are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Third, if there are oh-so many examples of staffing deltas available publicly, why do you not reference even a single one of them in your report?
You reference here what SAP charges for database licenses… why, when both vendors’ license costs are public information? Your report was not specific to SAP. In fact, it never even mentioned SAP. And SAP has incentive to make a deal with IBM to make their database cheaper because they don’t want to sell more Oracle licenses, so it’s hardly an unbiased reference.
Not to mention, I saw an example on this very site where Oracle is a million dollars cheaper than DB2, and this was verified by this blog’s host.
With regard to compression, I am not basing my opinions on vendor documentation, but you seem to be basing it entirely on IBM documentation – for both databases. Regardless, you give absolutely no data to support your arguments, much less your conclusion, in the report. The fact that you can cite a web page today that has done a better job in the analysis than you have, is irrelevant. Is that what IBM paid you for?
With regard to the tuning packs, yes I am intimately familiar with them, and OEM without tuning packs provides more information than DB2 does without add-on tools.
And Optim Performance Manager only came out in April to replace DB2 Performance Expert. Clearly you are not familiar with the product line.
My opinion is based on more than a decade of first-hand experience with both databases. If I look at your report, I can gather no solid information regarding what your opinion is based on, other than the line “This document was developed with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) funding.”
sapdba
June 5, 2010 at 10:10 am
sap dba
You work for Oracle, don’t you?
I look forward to your response
– BJ
Brian Jeffery
June 7, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Accusing me of working for Oracle? I go to the trouble to articulate several deficiencies in your report, and the only thing you come back with is borderline slander?
I was expecting a real discussion on the merits of your “analysis,” but I guess I shouldn’t have expected a substantive response, based on the lack of substance in your report.
Just for the record, I do not, nor have I ever, worked for ANY hardware or software vendor, including Oracle.
sapdba
June 13, 2010 at 10:17 am
@sapdba
Introduction: I work for IBM but do not speak for it!
Point: One of the easiest ways to find out which costs less is to talk to some who migrated to DB2 9.7 or newer. I think, ITG is very transparent about IBM funding, unlike The Edison Group that comes up with bogus reports for Oracle. I thought transparency was a good thing!
Ragu Kattinakere
May 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm