2020 CTRM Vendor Perception Survey and Analysis

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

Silver Sponsor

Introduction | 3 Demographics | 5 Global Brand Awareness And Market Perceptions | 9 Brand Awareness And Perceived Leadership Views By Geography | 16 - North America | 16 - Europe | 25 - Asia-Pacific | 32 Users Versus Influencers | 39 Market Leadership Summary | 45 Buying Criteria | 48 Overall Buying Criteria Results | 49 Brand Awareness Historical Trends | 51 Summary | 53 About Silver Sponsor Enuit LLC | 54 About Commodity Technology Advisory LLC | 55

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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

lockdown that took place over the late Spring period.

bona fide respondents. ComTech Advisory used email notification, Linkedin posts, blog articles, banner

ComTech was extremely rigorous in validating the

advertising and verbal requests to encourage responses.

complete responses and in the end, utilized only

CTRM vendors and service providers also promoted the

290 (38% of total questionnaire opens and 90% of

survey of their own accord. Some 762 people opened

completed surveys) in the results presented below.

the survey instrument over an 89-day period in the

Reasons for rejecting responses included:

Spring, while 322 of those attempted to complete all

1. The respondent worked for a vendor. Despite

the questions in the survey (42%). Many of the 762

instructions to discourage vendor representative

opted out at the privacy notice without answering any

responses, ComTech eliminated several such

questions at all, while others answered some, but

responses. These included responses that were

not all questions. These incomplete responses were

obviously by vendor staff using a vendor email

discarded as it was made clear in the survey preamble

address and several that were from vendor personnel

and instructions that only complete survey responses

using a private email or alternate addresses,

would be used. Compared to the last Vendor Perception

2. Duplicate responses were eliminated,

Study conducted in 2018, response counts were up

3. Finally, suspicious responses were eliminated.

significantly over 2018 (195 responses) and in fact, it

These included those with fictitious email addresses,

was a record response for this type of study. We believe

names or company names, or those lacking any

that this may have been due in part to the COVID-19

validation data.

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

The remaining 290 responses were deemed to be

this report.

valid and were compiled in our analysis and the results presented and discussed in this report.

The CTRM software sector has experienced many significant M&A events and this survey also gives

This pool of valid respondents was comprised of 71%

us a chance to look at historical brand strength. In

end-users and 29% influencers (consultants/advisors),

analyzing the results, we have sometimes looked at

which is a record percentage of end-user responses

the data in two ways - first, in terms of the company or

when compared to previous VPS surveys. Again, we

brand names actually used by the respondents (e.g.

think this may be due in part to these CTRM system

OpenLink, Allegro, SolArc); and second, by rolling up

working from home during the lockdown.

and consolidating the various related names that are part of a singular entity (e.g. Openlink, Allegro, etc. are

Vendor perceptions are interesting both in terms of how

consolidated under ION). This allows us to thoroughly

well a vendor is known in the market and as to how that

examine brand historical awareness and make past

vendor is viewed by those that are at least aware of it and

comparisons.

its products. However, vendor perceptions invariably lag current reality in that the opinions expressed in the data

Given that perceptions will lag current conditions, this

effectively represent views of past performance. This

report, representing vendor perceptions prior to mid-

means that it is equally important to look at trends in

year 2020, should be but only one of many data points

vendor perception through time. We have done this by

used by anyone looking for an ETRM or CTRM software

utilizing similar historical data collected and analyzed by

solution as events and vendor performance can and will

ComTech and CommodityPoint over the last decade or

change very rapidly in this software category.

so. This trend data is presented and discussed within

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

4

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

DEMOGRAPHICS 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 standalone basis, which highlights some interesting trends and differences between the three regions; and, 2. Between users and non-users or influencers.

We were also presented with something of a dilemma when reviewing the raw data. Each of the three geographic regions is at a different level of CTRM market 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

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

5

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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 overrepresentation 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 be most aware of that brand and may view it (given limited 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 © Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

6

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 vendor was installed at more than 5% of the respondents’ 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, Value Creed and Hivedome. Only 2 respondents 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 vendors are also quite strongly represented in the results, 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

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

7

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

8

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

GLOBAL BRAND AWARENESS AND MARKET PERCEPTIONS Brand Awareness In total, when asked to name all vendors they were aware of, the respondents mentioned over 100 different vendors and products (although this includes naming the 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).

the most well-known brands (52% and 48% 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.

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 Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

9

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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

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.

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).

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

10

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 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).

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

11

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 respondents that named a vendor cited with 12% and Ion 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

12

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

13

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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%).

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

14

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

15

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

This analysis will help us to understand the regional variations in brand awareness and perceptions, 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 quite mature when measured against other geographies.

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

16

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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. © Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

17

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 brand is more pronounced)? Despite that, the leadership 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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

18

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

Oil and Refined Products The pattern above is repeated when it comes to perceived 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

19

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

20

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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).

Figure 30 - Perceived Market Leader Ores and Concentrates - North America Ion SolArc Fendahl Ion TriplePoint Comfin Amphora Ignite Enuit Ion Openlink SAP Don't know Ion Brady Ion Consolidated None 0%

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

21

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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%) was the most highly ranked and if Ion products are consolidated, then it would be the market 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.

Figure 32 - Perceived Market Leadership Risk Management - North America Ion TriplePoint nGenue Molecule Eka Don't know Comfin Beacon Amphora Agiboo SAP Lacima Cubelogic FIS Ignite Enuit Ion Allegro Ion Ion Openlink None Ion Consolidated 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

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.

Respondents mentioned 17 different vendors in total

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

22

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

23

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

Commodity Management 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

Figure 35 -Perceived Market Leadership Commodity Management - North America

Don't know Ion TriplePoint OATI nGenue Molecule iRely Hivedome Eka Cubelogic Comfin Amphora FIS Agiboo Ion SolArc Ignite SAP Enuit Ion Allegro Ion Ion Openlink Ion Consolidated None 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

definition except perhaps the old Ion TriplePoint – was cited by 37% of respondents.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

24

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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).

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

25

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

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).

After removing the installed base for each vendor, Brady

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

26

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

Figure 42 - Perceived Market Leadership Natural Gas Europe FIS Cubelogic Brady SAP Contigo Comfin Ignite Igloo Pioneer Ion Don't know Ion Allegro Ion Openlink Ion Consolidated None 0%

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.

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Figure 43 - Perceived Market Leadership Electric Power Europe Visotech Previse Powel Likron Cubelogic SAP Comfin Ignite FIS Ion Igloo Brady Ion Allegro Pioneer Contigo Don't know Ion Openlink Ion Consolidated None

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

27

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

28

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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).

Software as a Service European respondents cited Pioneer as market leader in 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

29

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

30

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

31

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

Commodity Management European respondents appear to have a slightly stronger 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%) and Japan (13%) and generally, we had good geographic 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 Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

32

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 wellknown 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 © Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

33

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

34

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

35

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

36

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

Software as a Service 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

37

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Technical Architecture 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).

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

38

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

Commodity Management 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 strength of the Enuit brand does seem to have influenced 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).

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.

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.

39

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

40

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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. © Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

41

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

42

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Software as a Service 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

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

43

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

than influencers (though not by quite as much in this category) and cited many more vendors (not all vendors/ product responses shown in Figure 80 for clarity).

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.

Users and influencers also disagreed over who may be

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 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

44

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

Commodity Management Again for Commodity Management influencers appeared 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.

MARKET LEADERSHIP SUMMARY 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.

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. © Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

45

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

North America

Europe

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.

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

46

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

A ComTechAdvisory Report

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.

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

47

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

48

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

OVERALL BUYING CRITERIA RESULTS 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, Multicurrency, 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.

Chart 84 - Buying Criteria - Global Survey Ranked Physical Commodity Support

2.63

Market/Price Risk

2.54

Financial Commodity Support

2.52

Quality Vendor Support

2.45

Implementation Resources

2.38

Multi-Commodity

2.35

Multi-Currency

2.33

Competitive Price

2.21

Modern, modular Architecture

2.06

Physical Logistics

2.06

Credit Risk

2.02

Workflow

1.88

Regulatory Compliance

1.84

Advanced Risk Analytics

1.77

Personalizable UI

1.62

Cloud

1.51

Supplied by a Top Vendor

1.29

Figure 85 - Buying Criteria Global Physical Commodity Support Financial Commodity Support Market/Price Risk Multi-Currency Multi-Commodity Quality Vendor Support Implementation Resources Physical Logistics Credit Risk Competitive Price Modern, modular Architecture Workflow Regulatory Compliance Advanced Risk Analytics Cloud Personalizable UI Supplied by a top vendor 0%

10%

Critical

20%

30%

Important

40%

Nice

50%

Unimportant

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unnecessary

49

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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 bottomline 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.

Figure 86 - Buying Criteria - North America Physical Commodity Support Market/Price Risk Quality Vendor Support Financial Commodity Support Multi-Commodity Implementation Resources Physical Logistics Competitive Price Multi-Currency Modern, modular Architecture Credit Risk Advanced Risk Analytics Regulatory Compliance Workflow Personalizable UI Cloud Supplied by a top vendor

2.79 2.61 2.60 2.57 2.53 2.49 2.46 2.34 2.15 2.10 2.02 1.89 1.86 1.83 1.71 1.43 1.34

Figure 87 - Buying Criteria - Europe Multi-Currency Physical Commodity Support Financial Commodity Support Market/Price Risk

2.70 2.59 2.56 2.50

Quality Vendor Support Implementation Resources Multi-Commodity Competitive Price Modern, modular Architecture

2.50 2.41 2.40 2.20 2.18

Credit Risk Workflow Regulatory Compliance Physical Logistics Advanced Risk Analytics

1.98 1.98 1.94 1.76 1.65

Personalizable UI Cloud Supplied by a top vendor

1.57 1.50 1.13

Figure 88 - Buying Criteria - Asia Pacific Market/Price Risk Physical Commodity Support Financial Commodity Support Quality Vendor Support Implementation Resources Competitive Price Credit Risk Multi-Currency Physical Logistics Multi-Commodity Modern, modular Architecture Advanced Risk Analytics Workflow Cloud Regulatory Compliance Personalizable UI Supplied by a top vendor

Š Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

2.64 2.61 2.44 2.38 2.26 2.19 2.17 2.17 2.10 2.10 1.90 1.88 1.86 1.72 1.68 1.65 1.50

50

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

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.

Figure 89 - Brand Awareness Through Time 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

2009

2011

2013

2016

2018

2020

Ion TriplePoint

Ion Openlink

Ion Allegro

FIS

Brady

Eka

OATI

Amphora

Ion Aspect

SAP

Ion

Enuit

51

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

52

A ComTechAdvisory Report

2020 CTRM VENDOR PERCEPTION SURVEY AND ANALYSIS

SUMMARY 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.

© Commodity Technology Advisory LLC, 2020, All Rights Reserved.

53

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 cycle: From done deal through sent bill.

ENTRADE® provides value to traders and the front office. It’s deal blotters can be used to test profitability on potential deals. It has a workspace, called sandboxes, which produce Flash PNL reports to determine the effect of new deals to an overall portfolio. 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 without 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, aggregation of costs, value at risk, ancillary costs, the quality of product, and then tie that data to respective counterparties, contracts and portfolios with an advanced analytical engine which allows you to decompose 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 associated 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