ctrm vendor perceptions report

Platinum Research Sponsors

Gold Research Sponsor

Commodity Technology Advisory LLCSugar Land TX and Prague CZ

ComTechAdvisory.com

CTRM Vendor PerceptionsJune 2014

RESEARCH AND REPORT

2014 ETRM / CTRM Vendor Perception Study Commodity Technology Advisory llc

© 2014 Commodity Technology Advisory, llc 2



ContentsWhy do perceptions matter? ...............................................................................................................................................................4

CTRM Executives Respond to Report Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5

Allegro ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

OpenLink .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction & Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Research Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................6

Market Awareness .............................................................................................................................................................................9

Experience with Vendors ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Market Leadership Perceptions ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Overall CTRM/ETRM Market Leader ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Overall Energy Commodities................................................................................................................................................... 11

Electric Power Trading ............................................................................................................................................................ 11

Natural Gas Trading ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Oil and Oil Products Trading ................................................................................................................................................... 12

Coal Trading............................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Ags and Softs Trading ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

Cotton, Coffee, Cocoa and Sugar Trading ............................................................................................................................... 13

Grains Trading ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Edible Oils ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Base Metals Trading ................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Precious Metals Trading .......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Metals Recyclables Trading ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Shipping and Freight Trading .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Cloud Delivery ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Overall Technical Architecture ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Summary of Leadership Perception Results ............................................................................................................................ 16

Critical Attributes in ETRM / CTRM Software ................................................................................................................................... 17

Trends and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Installed Base and Geographic Differences .................................................................................................................................. 18

Market Maturity .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Focus on Consultants and Integrators .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Trends ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

About Allegro .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

About OpenLink .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27

About JustCommodity ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28

About Commodity Technology Advisory llc ..................................................................................................................................... 29



Why do perceptions matter?This 2014 CTRM Vendor Perception Study has been developed to provide insights into how the users, buying decisionmakers, and consultants that make-up the CTRM marketplace perceive the landscape of companies that produce and sellCTRM/ETRM products.

But, why is this important?

Vendors spend significant sums creating brands and trying to familiarize potential buyers with their products andcapabilities; and via that process, work to establish a positive reputation in the market. Buyers will use their familiarity andperceptions of those vendors when making decisions as to which vendors and products to include in a purchasing process.Past research by the authors of this report indicate that buyers will initially use two sources of information when consideringwhich system to purchase: 1) their personal knowledge and experiences of having previously worked with a vendor orsoftware package, and 2) the knowledge, experiences and opinions of their peers in their industry.

Potential buyers who limit their search to those companies that they or their peers know are seeing only a relatively smallcircle in the scheme of things. Depending on where a prospective buyer sits in the commodities market, there may be asmany as 15 or 20 potential solutions that could meet their needs and many of those will be missed if one simply relies onfriends or acquaintances to name them. Further, this method of identifying potential vendors simply reinforces the standingof the companies that have been the most successful over time. It doesn’t allow room for smaller companies or start-ups tohave an equal footing in the purchase decision process, potentially never getting an “at bat” as the market just doesn’t havethe same history and familiarity with them as they do with the market leaders.

So, it’s important that buyers become familiar with all the potential vendors if they wish to find a solution that best fits theirneeds. It’s equally important that vendors help those market participants become familiar with them by investing inmarketing and sales - establishing themselves in the market as a company that should be considered for every opportunitythat falls within the functional and geographic scope of their products.

With that being said, this research is intended to address a number of objectives. First, it does provide those that arecontemplating purchasing a new system, the views of a wider peer group from which to get feedback. Second, it providesvendors a measure – a report card if you will - to determine their success in establishing and/or maintaining marketawareness and perceptions of leadership; or for the smaller and start-up companies, a gauge of how well they’ve done inestablishing themselves as players in the game.

Beyond measuring familiarity and perceptions of leadership in specific categories of commodities, we have used thisresearch opportunity to look at a number of other factors that influence perceptions of leadership and impact userexperiences, including identifying what buyers look for when selecting a system, determining how happy users are withtheir installed systems and measuring how many systems those users have installed to manage their business. The answersto these questions give us a snapshot of the maturity of the software category, how active it is, how well the solutions meetthe requirements and much more.

By virtue of the fact that ComTech Advisory’s predecessor organization – CommodityPoint – had performed a vendorperception study more or less annually for almost a decade, we also have a historical perspective on how brands haveevolved, risen and fallen in tune to the cycles of commodity markets and issues. It makes for fascinating reading andanalysis.

ComTech Advisory is pleased to present the results of its 2014 vendor perception study. This years’ study had the largestresponse rate of any survey we have done and we thank everyone who participated for their valuable feedback.Additionally, we want to thank our sponsors and advertisers whose support enables us to make this research available forfree to the market.



Introduction & DemographicsCommodity Technology Advisory’s (ComTech) vendor perceptionstudy was conducted to establish end-user perceptions of theE/CTRM vendors and products and to determine marketleadership perceptions as well as buying criteria, demand levels,and brand awareness of the different vendors. The researchcomprised of a comprehensive set of questions that end usersand others were invited to answer as an internet survey using theSurvey MonkeyTM online survey tool. The survey was open forresponses between January 24th and March 20th, 2014 andcollected some 234 responses.

The survey was promoted in numerous ways in order to attractbone fide respondents. ComTech used email notification, blogarticles, banner advertising and verbal requests to encourageresponses. ComTech used a number of email lists and personalcontacts to promote the survey. E/CTRM vendors and serviceproviders promoted the survey of their own accord. ComTechalso used an incentive to gain responses with every fifth validrespondent being provided with a small Amazon.com giftcertificate as well as the promise of a copy of the final report.

The number of responses gained represents a strong responsebut ComTech were rigorous in validating these responses and inthe end, utilized 146 (62%) of them in the results presentedbelow. Reasons for rejecting responses included:

1. The respondent worked for a vendor. Despite instructionsto discourage vendor employee responses, ComTecheliminated 12 such responses. These included responsesthat were obviously by vendor staff using a vendor emailaddress and also those that we discerned to be vendorresponses using a private email address,

CTRM Executives Respondto Report Findings

Allegro

http://youtu.be/FYmGqoMJk7k

Mr. Ray Hood, President and CEO,Allegro DevelopmentMr. Hood discusses the results of the 2014CTRM Vendor Perception Study.Additionally, he reviews his company’smarket position and future plans as Allegrocontinues to grow and expand their reachglobal across commodities.

OpenLink

http://youtu.be/oFtUaY2yd_4

Mr. Doug Wendler, MD of AmericasEnergy, OpenLinkMr. Wendler discusses the results of the2014 CTRM Vendor Perception Study. Healso reviews his company’s market positionand future plans to continue to grow theirmarket reach and maintain their leadershipposition across multiple categories ofCTRM.

http://youtu.be/FYmGqoMJk7k

http://youtu.be/oFtUaY2yd_4



2. Incomplete responses were also eliminated where therespondent had answered less than 50% of the questions.There were 64 incomplete responses eliminated,

3. Duplicate responses were also eliminated. There were twoduplicate responses,

4. Finally, suspicious responses were eliminated. Theseincluded those with fictitious email addresses, names orcompany names or those lacking such data. Some 9suspicious responses were eliminated.

The results presented and discussed in this report were obtainedonly using the 146 responses that we deemed to be valid andusable.

Vendor perceptions are interesting both in terms of how well avendor is known in the market and as to how it is viewed by thosethat are aware of it and its products. However, vendorperceptions invariably lag current reality basically representingwhat a vendor did or was to the end user in the past. This meansthat it is equally important to look at trends in vendor perceptionthrough time. ComTech has done this by utilizing similarhistorical data collected and discussed by CommodityPoint overthe last decade or so and this trend data is also discussed below.

As perceptions lag, this report should be viewed as representingvendor perceptions prior to 2014 and anyone looking for anETRM or CTRM software solution is strongly advised to researchthe market effectively as things can and do change very rapidly inthis software category.

Research DemographicsWe received a total of 234 responses to our survey; however, weeliminated 87 of those responses that were provided by vendorpersonnel, were incomplete, or were otherwise suspicious. Afterthis reduction, we were left with 146 valid responses (Figure 1).

The respondent’s locations reflected a very fair distribution ofexperienced CTRM software users, with the majority of theresponses coming from North America (53%), followed by Europe(39%), and Asia-Pacific (7%). We also received one response eachfrom South America and the Middle East.

The largest industry group represented in our research was theUtility/Generator group (39%), followed by consultants/SystemIntegrators (20%) and Merchants/Traders/Brokers (18%). The

7%

39%

0%

53%

1%Figure 1: Respondent Locations

Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East NAM SAM



remaining company segments comprised less than 10% each.(Figure 2).

It should be noted, however, that many of the respondents didindicate that their company spanned multiple industry classesand that many of the companies identified as traders and refinerscould also be representative of the oil and gasexploration/production markets. That being said, based uponComTech research, it does appear that the oil and gas companiesare under-represented in our data.

Note: Responses from Consultants/Systems Integrators were notsolicited nor considered for inclusion in questions relating tosoftware systems in current use, commodities traded, orsatisfaction with current software solution in use.

When looking at the commodities traded by our respondents(Figure 3), it is somewhat surprising at first glance to see the mostcited traded commodity is emission credits; however, consideringthe single largest respondent group to our survey is theUtility/Generator segment, it should not be all that surprising,particularly given that more than 90% of those are located inEurope and North America, region with established emissionsprograms. In addition to emissions, we do see a good distributionof commodity types traded by our respondent group, with allcommodities represented in almost all geographic regions.

When asked to identify the primary commodities traded, we dosee what would be a more normal distribution - one that is morereflective of the current markets and installed base for CTRMsolutions. Energy was clearly the most commonly traded singlecommodity class. A number of North American respondentsindicated they traded all the commodity classes in question, withnone being referred to as a primary commodity (Figure 4).

Interestingly, when comparing the primary commodities tradedby our respondent group, the results do correlate very well withestimated market share of the commodity classes noted inCommodity Technology Advisory’s 2013 CTRM Market SizingReport (Figure 5). The respondents were asked to identify whichsystem they were currently using (Figure 6). Allegro was mostcommonly cited system currently in use with our respondentgroup, with 19% reporting its use. SunGard users accounted forabout 8%, OpenLink about 6%, and Triple Point accounted for

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Utility/Generator

Consultant/Systems…Merchant/Trader/Broker

Chemical/Petrochemical/R…

Agricultural…

Industrial Commodity…

Hedge Fund/Investment…

Mining/Metal ProducerOil&Gas Exploration

Figure 2: Respondent Company Types

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Energy

Ags/Softs

Precious Metals

Base Metals

Freight Rates

Emission Credits

All Commodities

Figure 3: Types of Commodities Traded

SAM NAM Middle East Europe Asia-Pacific

0% 20% 40% 60%

Energy

Ags/Softs

Precious Metals

Base Metals

Freight Rates

Emission CreditsAll Commodities

Figure 4: Primary Commodities Traded


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Energy

Precious Metals

Other Metals and Ores

Ags/Softs

Other (Freight, Emissions,…

Figure 5: 2013 Estimated CTRM Marketby Commodity Class

Source: 2013 CTRM Market Size Report, CommodityTechnology Advisory



about 5% of the respondents. The responses associated with thevarious vendors are not necessarily reflective of the installed baseof those vendors. In these results, Allegro would appear to beover-represented in terms of response rates within their clientbase, with others, such as OpenLink and Triple Point, beingunder-represented.

16% of the respondents indicated they were using Excelspreadsheets for some or all of their ETRM / CTRM requirements.A further 11% indicate that they are using some form of in-housedeveloped system. 8% of the respondents, companies who maytrade commodities as a non-core part of their wider businessesare not utilizing any type of dedicated ETRM/CTRM solution.

When asked how satisfied they were with their currentsolution(s), Figure 7, almost 90% of the respondents indicatedsome level ofsatisfaction, with19% saying theywere very satisfied,50% satisfied and19% somewhatsatisfied. Only 9%indicated they weredissatisfied withtheir currentproduct(s).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

SAPUtilisoft

VuePointNavita

PricehubVedaris

eOptSiemens

LacimaAscend AnalyticsCalvus Solutions

PCIAmphora

ComFinTrayport Contigo

IRMVentyxAbacusSolArcZainet

OATIDBC Smartsoft

BradyGeneration 10

Triple PointOpenLink

NoneSunGardIn House

ExcelAllegro

Figure 6: Current System(s) in Use

Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East NAM SAM50%

19%

19%

9%2%

1%

Figure 7: How satisfied are you with yourcurrent solution?

Satisfied Somewhat SatisfiedVery Satisfied DissatisfiedNo response Don't Know



Market AwarenessWe asked our respondents to identify all the vendors of CTRMsoftware of which they were aware (Figure 8). Both Allegro andOpenLink were identified most often, with about 63% of therespondents naming the two companies. SunGard and TriplePoint were also commonly cited, each being named by more than50% of the respondents. Below those four, the recognition ofCTRM vendors drops off dramatically, with no other vendorsbeing named by more than 20% of the group, and only Brady(19%), Murex (16%) and EKA (13%) were cited by more than 10%of the respondents.

In all, our respondents’ noted 76 different vendors and/orproducts, though it could be argued that several of those whichwere cited would not be accurately described as CTRM suppliers.In calculating this result, we did not combine named products, orvendors which had been previously acquired by other vendors,under the vendor of those products, meaning that Solarc or DBCSmartsoft were not combined with OpenLink.

It should be noted that when asked about their knowledge of thecurrent market for ETRM or CTRM products (Figure 9), most ofour respondents noted that they rarely follow the market, withmore than a third saying they only research current vendors orofferings when they are seeking to buy a new solution. This lackof ongoing examination of the market would explain the inclusionof vendors that have either been acquired by others (Solarc) orothers that have left the market for other reasons (Sakonnet).

The lack of regular or constant examination would also point tothe market lagging in their awareness of companies that haverapidly grown in the last several years, such as Aspect, Brady orEKA. In fact, the survey shows that brand awareness in thismarket consistently lags both reality and vendor marketingefforts.

The results also indicated that Consultants and SystemIntegrator’s, unsurprisingly, follow the CTRM market much moreavidly than the end users.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

ComFinJustCommodity

DeltaSakonnet

WoodlandsQuorum

EnteroDBC Smartsoft

iRiskAgiboo

TrayportSAS

EnuitTradePaq

NavitaLacima

PioneerAbacus

Generation 10SAP

NoneAspect Enterprise

VentyxSolArc

OATIAmphora

ContigoEKA

MurexBrady

Triple PointSunGard

OpenLinkAllegro

Figure 8: Known Vendors - Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Only research whenbuying

Occasionally

Avidly

No Answer

Don’t follow

Figure 9: How closely do you follow theE/CTRM Market?



Experience with VendorsWhen asked what CTRM vendor or products our respondents hadpreviously used, Allegro (43%) was most noted, with OpenLinkEndur, Triple Point and SunGard also being commonlymentioned. Beyond thosevendors cited in Figure 10,an additional 38 othervendors were also noted,each with only one or twocitations each.

When asked which onesystem of those they hadused, they were mostsatisfied with (Figure 11),Allegro was cited by 48 ofthe respondents, followedby OpenLink (20) andSunGard (11). In all 34vendors were noted by thegroup, with 21 of thosebeing cited only once(Figure 11).

0% 10% 20% 30%

IRM iOPTSakonnet Xenon

MurexSunGard AltraDBC Smartsoft

EKAVedaris

Contigo EnTraderGeneration 10

NavitaAmphora

NoneNucleus

OATIBradyZainet

OpenLink Right AngleSunGard

Triple PointOpenLink Endur

Allegro

Figure 10: Which vendors/productshave you utilized previously?

Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East

NAM SAM0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Navita

Zainet

OATI

DBC Smartsoft

ComFin

Triple Point

Brady

Contigo

Generation 10

SolArc

SunGard

OpenLink

Allegro

Figure 11: Of the products you'veutilized previously, which one wereyou most satisfied with?


NAM SAM



Market Leadership Perceptions

Overall CTRM/ETRM Market LeaderWhen asked who they considered to be the leader in theETRM/CTRM markets, 27% of the survey respondents indicatedthey didn’t know who the leader would be. Of the vendorsnamed, 24% indicated OpenLink’s Endur product as the leader inthe market, followed by Allegro with 18%. In Europe, OpenLink’sEndur was noted about twice as often as Allegro; however, inNorth America, the two companies/products were noted equallyas market leaders (Figure 12).

Beyond OpenLink and Allegro, 11% of the respondents felt therewas no leader. Triple Point was noted by 5% and SunGard wasnoted by 4%. OpenLink’s DBC Smartsoft product was mostnoted by Asia-Pacific respondents as the market leader.

Overall Energy CommoditiesWhen asked to name a leader in the energy commodities space(regardless of the type of energy), 24% indicated OpenLink wasthe leader, with 18% noting Allegro. Those that felt there was nosingular leader comprised 9%, followed by SunGard with 6% andTriple Point with 4% (Figure 13).

Much like the market leader in ETRM/CTRM, OpenLink wasnamed more often in Europe and equally so to Allegro in NorthAmerica.

Electric Power TradingWhen asked to name a leader in managing electric power trading,OpenLink was again the vendor named most often, and againwas followed by Allegro. However, though OpenLink was clearlyconsidered to be the leader in Europe, Allegro was considered theleader in the North American market. Though 12% felt there wasno leader in the power trading space, SunGard was noted by 7%of the respondents.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

BradySAP

OATICalvusSolArc

Trayport ContigoTriple Point

SunGardNone

AllegroOpenLink

Don't Know

Figure 13: Leader - Overall EnergyCommodities


NAM SAM

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

SolArcCalvusVentyx

PCIBrady

Triple PointContigo

OATISunGard

NoneAllegro

OpenLinkDon't Know

Figure 14: Leader - Electric PowerTrading


NAM SAM

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

OpenLink Right AngleBrady

VuePointAmphora

AgrisOATISAP

Generation 10Calvus Solutions

AffinityComFin Bulldog

EKADBC Smartsoft

SunGardTriple Point

NoneAllegro

OpenLink EndurDon't Know

Figure 12: Considered to be MarketLeader in ETRM/CTRM


NAM SAM



Natural Gas TradingIn the natural gas space, Allegro edged out OpenLink as theleader in the category, driven particularly by their strength in theNorth American market. Others noted included SunGard with5%, Triple Point with 3% and Trayport Contigo with 2%. All othervendors listed in Figure 15 were noted only once.

Oil and Oil Products TradingIn Oil and Oil Products Trading, OpenLink (18%) was again themost noted vendors, again followed by Allegro (9%). TriplePoint, though trailing those that felt there was no leader in thespace, received notice by 7% of the respondents and wasfollowed by Solarc (which was acquired by OpenLink more than 2years ago) with 5%. Amphora, with 3% was the only other vendorto receive more than a single response.

Coal TradingCoal trading is not a large market for ETRM/CTRM vendors, andthe responses we received bear that out. The two companiesmost often cited, Allegro and OpenLink, each were noted by lessthan 10% of our respondents, with the combination of “Don’tKnow” and “None” making up about 70% of the total responses.

SunGard (5%), Triple Point (4%), Solarc (2%) and TrayportContigo (2%) were the only other companies to be noted morethan once by our respondents.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

ComFinSunGard

CalvusAmphora

SolArcTriple Point

NoneAllegro

OpenLinkDon't Know

Figure 16: Leader - Oil and Oil ProductsTrading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60%

ICEAmphora

CalvusEKA

Trayport ContigoSolArc

Triple PointSunGard

OpenLinkAllegro

NoneDon't Know

Figure 17: Leader - Coal Trading


NAM SAM

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

MurexLacimaSolArc

SAPEKA

CalvusTrayport Contigo

Triple PointSunGard

NoneOpenLink

AllegroDon't Know

Figure 15: Leader - Natural GasTrading


NAM SAM



Ags and Softs TradingVery few of our respondents could identify a leader in ags andsofts trading, with 65% indicating they didn’t know and another10% saying they felt there was no leader in this category. Of thecompanies named as leaders, OpenLink was cited most often(8%), followed by EKA (6%) and Allegro (3%). The other namedleaders were cited only a single time each by the respondents.

Cotton, Coffee, Cocoa and Sugar TradingThe category of leader for cotton, coffee, cocoa and sugar tradingwas much like ags and softs trading, with 80% of the respondentssaying they didn’t know who the leader would be and another 8%saying there was no leader in this category. EKA was the mostcited vendor, though only with 4%, followed by Triple Point with3% and OpenLink with 2%. The others, Solarc, Allegro, G10 andCalvus Solutions were cited only a single time each.

Grains TradingMuch like the other Ag categories, our respondent group haddifficulty identifying a leader, with more than 80% saying theyeither didn’t know or felt there was none. Of the named vendors,Triple Point and EKA were tied, each being noted by 5% of therespondents, followed by OpenLink (4%) and Allegro (2%). Theothers, iRely, Calvus Solutions and Agris were each noted onetime.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Calvus

G10

Allegro

SolArc

OpenLink

Triple Point

EKA

None

Don't Know

Figure 19: Leader - Cotton, Coffee,Cocoa and Sugar Trading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AgrisCalvus

iRelyAllegro

OpenLinkEKA

Triple PointNone

Don't Know

Figure 20: Leader - Grains Trading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

SolArc

Agiboo

Generation 10

iRely

Agris

Allegro

Triple Point

EKA

OpenLink

None

Don't Know

Figure 18: Leader - Ags and SoftsTrading


NAM SAM



Edible OilsThe edible oils trading category was again much like the otherags categories, with few of the respondents able to name aleader. Of the named companies, OpenLink was noted by 4%,Triple Point and Eka by 3%, and Allegro by 2%. The others thatnamed a single time were SunGard, Calvus Solutions, iRely andJustCommodity.

Base Metals TradingMuch like the agricultural categories, our respondents were notwell acquainted with the metals trading markets. In leadership inbase metals, only Brady (5%), OpenLink (4%) and Triple Point(3%) received more than a single notice by the respondents.

Precious Metals TradingIn precious metals leadership, OpenLink was most often citedwith 5%, followed by Brady with 3% and Triple Point, Allegro andMurex, each with 2%. Calvus Solutions and SunGard were citedby one respondent each.

Metals Recyclables TradingRecyclable metals trading, though an important and growingmarket, is a specialized market and is essentially unknown tomost commodities traders. This lack of awareness is borne out inour results, with only OpenLink (3%) receiving more than onenotice from our respondents. Allegro, Brady and CalvusSolutions each received a single mention.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

JustCommodityiRely

CalvusSunGard

AllegroEKA

Triple PointOpenLink

NoneDon't Know

Figure 21: Leader - Edible Oils Trading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AllegroCalvus

AmphoraTriple Point

OpenLinkBradyNone

Don't Know

Figure 22: Leader - Base MetalsTrading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

SunGardCalvusMurex

AllegroTriple Point

BradyOpenLink

NoneDon't Know

Figure 23: Leader - Precious MetalsTrading


NAM SAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Calvus

Brady

Allegro

OpenLink

None

Don't Know

Figure 24: Leader - Recyclables Trading


NAM SAM



Shipping and Freight TradingShipping and freight trading is a market that has been in sufferingto a large degree since the start of the financial crisis and globaleconomic recession in 2008. As it’s not been a market of greatactivity for some time, it is not surprising that 80% of ourrespondents could not identify a leader in the space (Figure 26).Of those that were cited as leaders, Triple Point was most oftennoted (6%), followed by Allegro (5%), OpenLink (3%) andAmphora (2%). Calvus Solutions, Solarc, Tanscore, Veson, andShipnet were each noted by a single respondent.

Cloud DeliverySurprisingly, particularly given the growing interest by themarketplace surrounding cloud delivery of CTRM solutions, veryfew of our respondents could name a leader in the cloud deliverycategory (Figure 27). Allegro, OpenLink and Aspect were notedby 3% of our respondents each, followed by Amazing, EKA,Woodlands, Calvus Solutions, Kiodex and VuePoint.

As a follow-on question to the leader in cloud delivery category,we did ask our respondents how their CTRM solutions werecurrently deployed (Figure 28). 75% of the group indicated theirproducts were traditionally installed, which would correspond tothe lack of knowledge of cloud solution vendors noted above.That being said, 13% of our group did indicate they were utilizingsome type of cloud deployment, with 8% deployed in a multi-tenanted cloud model and 5% using a single tenanted model (orhosted) solution.

Overall Technical ArchitectureThough the category of “leader in overall technical architecture”(Figure 28) had a relatively high number of “don’t know”responses (59%), Allegro did emerge as the clear leader amongstthe named vendors with 17% of the respondents noting thecompany as the overall technical architecture leader. OpenLinkwas noted by 6% and EKA by 2%. The others, including CalvusSolutions, Solarc, Triple Point, SunGard and Trayport Contigo,were noted with a single response each.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

ShipnetVeson

TranscoreSolarcCalvus

AmphoraOpenLink

AllegroTriple Point

NoneDon't Know

Figure 25: Leader - Shipping andFreight Trading

Asia-Pacific EuropeMiddle East NAMSAM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

VuePointKiodexCalvus

WoodlandsEKA

AmazingOATI

AspectOpenLink

AllegroNone

Don't Know

Figure 26: Leader - Cloud Delivery


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Trayport ContigoSunGard

Triple PointSolArcCalvus

EKAOpenLink

NoneAllegro

Don't Know

Figure 28: Leader - Overall TechnicalArchitecture


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

TraditionalLeased

Single Tenanted CloudMulti-tenanted Cloud

Don't Know

Figure 27: How is your current CTRMSolution Deployed?


NAM SAM



Summary of Leadership Perception ResultsFollowing is a summary of the results of perceived market leadership:

Leadership Category Leader Runner Up Third

Overall ETRM/CTRM OpenLink Allegro Triple PointEnergy OpenLink Allegro SunGardElectric Power OpenLink Allegro SunGardNatural Gas Allegro OpenLink SunGardOil and Oil Products OpenLink Allegro Triple PointCoal Allegro/OpenLink - SunGardAgs and Softs OpenLink EKA Triple PointCotton, Sugar, Cocoa etc. EKA Triple Point -Grains Triple Point EKA OpenLinkEdible Oils OpenLink Triple Point/EKA -Base Metals Brady OpenLink Triple Point

Precious Metals OpenLink Brady Triple PointRecyclables OpenLink - -Shipping Triple Point Allegro OpenLinkCloud Delivery Allegro/Aspect Enterprise/OpenLink - -



Critical Attributes in ETRM / CTRMSoftwareComTech took advantage of this research effort toexamine the attributes that buyers and users ofCTRM software view as most critical to theirbusiness.

We asked our respondents to rank numerousattributes/capabilities/functions of CTRM productsby their view of the criticality of each, ranging from“Critical” to “Unimportant”. The descriptions ofeach attribute and its relative position in terms ofcriticality are shown in Figure 29.

According to the survey respondents, the top threecritical capabilities they look for in a CTRM solutionare support for physical commodities, qualitysupport supplied by the vendor and support forfinancial commodities. These results are notnecessarily surprising and are generally reflectiveof the capabilities of the largest vendors in thespace – those that service firms that trade and/or

otherwise manage both physical and financialcommodities, and whose ability to manage theirbusiness is dependent upon a quality product thatis backed by quality support from their vendor.

Other critical or highly ranked attributes includequality implementation services provided by thesoftware vendor, noted by 87% of the respondentsas being at least important, if not critical; supportfor multiple commodities (80% noted as at leastimportant); and support for comprehensivemarket/price risk management (81%).Interestingly, price was noted highly, with a totalscore of 86% combined “critical” and “important”,but had a lower critical ranking than 8 otherfunctional or vendor attributes; implying that whilethe price of the software is important, buyers arewilling to pay more for those systems that bestmeet their needs.

While the largest vendors do still dominate themarket place, many of our respondents do indicatethat they would be open to purchasing a systemfrom a supplier that would not typically fall withinthe category of a market leader - with 39% sayingit is less than important that their supplier beconsidered a “top vendor”.

Interestingly, the ability to deploy the solution viathe cloud ranked as the least critical or importantattribute of all those tested, with less than aquarter noting it as at least important (combinedcritical and important), and only 5% saying cloudwas critical to their purchase decision process, andanother 18% indicating cloud deployment wasimportant. This result does reinforce ComTech’soutlook for sales of cloud based solutions in thenear term, with our current estimate being thatapproximately one in ten systems sold in the nextseveral years will be cloud based; with that ratioincreasing over time.

0% 50% 100%

Ability to deploy in the cloud

Comprehensive treasury support

Modern Modular Architecture

Supplied by a top vendor

Graphical and drill-down…

Quality support available by…

Ability to personalize user…

Comprehensive credit risk

Available at a competitive price

Multi Currency

Physical logisitics

Comprehensive market/price risk

Quality Implementation Service…

Multi Commodity Capable

Financial Support

Quality support by vendor

Physical Support

Figure 29: CTRM Attributes

Critical Important Nice to Have

Not Essential Unimportant

Quality ImplementationServices Provided by Vendor

Vendor

Ability to Personalize UserInterface

Quality Support Availablefrom Consultants

Graphical and drill-downanalytics and reporting



Trends and AnalysisInstalled Base and Geographic DifferencesWhen looking at brand recognition, it could beassumed that the respondents know, and are mostfamiliar with, their own solution providers. In orderto eliminate a potential bias associated with thisfamiliarity, the indicated vendor installed basescan be removed to provide an adjusted view ofbrand recognition.

When the installed base is removed from theunprompted brand recognition results, the overalleffect is not hugely significant except for a smallnumber of relatively minor changes (Figure 30).

Any vendor that had respondents from its installedbase in the sample will show a decline inunprompted brand recognition depending on thesize of that installed base. One impact is that as aresult of Allegro having a larger number of clientsresponding to the survey than its competitors, itsunprompted brand recognition falls from equalfirst with OpenLink to fourth behind OpenLink,Triple Point and SunGard respectively. Despitethis, the top 10 vendors remain the same eitherway the data is reviewed. In Allegro’s case, it is therelative size of its North American installed base inour sample that has the most impact.

It is also interesting to look at geographicrecognition differences between the vendors’recognition levels. In North America (Figure 31),the top 4 vendors are Allegro, OpenLink, SunGardand Triple Point and in Europe (Figure 32), thesame 4 vendors are again top except thatOpenLink and Allegro have switched places.

Even accounting for installed base adjustments,the same four vendors dominate in both regionswith just slight changes in pecking order. Belowthe top 4 however, we observe regionallydominant vendors. In North America, OATI, EKA,Amphora and Ventyx are the next four best well-known vendors whereas in Europe, it is Brady,Murex, Trayport Contigo and EKA. Below thesevendors are smaller vendors such as Pioneer andAbacus in North America and Agiboo andTradePaq in Europe.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

OATI

Amphora

Trayport Contigo

EKA

Murex

Brady

Triple Point

SunGard

Allegro

OpenLink

Figure 30: Unprompted Brand Recognition - TotalAdjusted for Installed Base

Less Installed Base Unprompted0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

WoodlandsQuorum

EnteroSAS

LacimaAspect Enterprise

EnuitPioneerAbacus

SAPMurexSolArc

VentyxAmphora

EKAOATI

Triple PointSunGard

OLFAllegro

Figure 31: Unprompted Brand Recognition- North AmericaAdjusted for Installed Base

Less Installed Base Unprompted



The top four vendors are all well establishedbrands with global reach and these are also the top4 vendors on an annual revenues basis. Belowthem are the larger regional vendors that arechallenging the top 4 (e.g. Brady and EKA),formerly well-known brands that no longerindependently exist as they have gone out ofbusiness or have been acquired (e.g. SolArc andNavita), vendors which seem to be fading in recentyears (e.g. Murex and Ventyx) in the commoditiestrading software category, and then smallerregional vendors that are well known in smallergeographic markets or commodity verticals (e.g.Trayport Contigo, Agiboo, OATI, Generation 10,Delta).

Finally, in neither North America nor Europe is anyvendor absolutely dominant in terms of brandrecognition. The highest ranked vendor in bothmarkets is known by less than 7 out of 10respondents in North America, the most maturegeography and by even fewer in the marginallyless mature European market. All is still to play for.

Market MaturityOne way of assessing market maturity is to look atthe virgin or replacement market ratios. The virgincomponent of a market is that that utilizessomething other than a commercially availablesoftware solution and the replacement market isthat which uses only commercially availablesolutions. In the data collected by the 2014 survey,the virgin component of the market is Europe andNorth America is almost identical at 34.7% and34.1% respectively and at 34.5% overall across allof the data. Effectively then about 1/3rd of themarket is virgin and 2/3rds is replacement overall.Plainly, this will vary significantly by commoditybut there is insufficient data to assess for specificcommodities.

The maturation of the CTRM market is furtherindicated by looking at the ratios of those whonamed a vendor solution as their market leaderversus those respondents that didn’t know ordidn’t think that there was an overall marketleader.

In this instance, 45% of European respondents and35% of North American respondents did not orcould not name a vendor as overall market leader.37% of all respondents could not name an overallmarket leader. Essentially, only 1/3rd ofrespondents could not identify a vendor as theirchoice of overall market leader.

Another indicator of overall market maturity is therelative percentage of respondents who can namea vendor in each of the market leadershipcategories. Of course, the nature of therespondent impacts on this too, as an agriculturaltrader is more likely to be able to name a solutionvendor for grains trading than an oil tradingrespondents for example. Nonetheless, the moremature the software category and industry themore respondents should be aware of a vendor.Figure 33 shows the results of this analysis.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Delta

Amphora

Generation 10

Aspect Enterprise

iRisk

Agiboo

TradePaq

SolArc

Navita

EKA

Trayport Contigo

Murex

Brady

Triple Point

SunGard

Allegro

OpenLink

Figure 32: Unprompted Brand Recognition - EuropeAdjusted for Installed Base

Less Installed Base Unprompted



As might be expected, the energy segments areindicated to be the most mature and metals andgeneral ags and softs, along with recyclablesappear to be the least mature.

Focus on Consultants and IntegratorsConsultants and Integrators are often influential inselecting software and so their views are alsointeresting. In the previous results, the consultantsand integrators are represented in most of theresponses (unless otherwise stated), but what dothe consultants and integrators responses tell usand how do they compare to the generalresponses?

Figure 34 (compare with Figure 8 on page 9) showsthe vendors that the consultants and integratorsindicated that they knew, including geographicsplits as well. In fact, the responses are almost

identical to the broader sample’s response withOpenLink and Allegro neck and neck as the mostwidely known vendors, and Triple Point andSunGard rounding out the top four. The next groupis again Brady, EKA, Amphora, Trayport Contigoand Murex with just a slight change in order.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Recyclables

Cotton/Coffee/Cocoa/Sugar

Precious Metals

Ediable Oils

Delivered in the Cloud

Base Metals

Grains

Shipping and Freight

Ags/Softs

Overall Architecture

Coal

Crude Oil/Products

Electric Power

Natural Gas

Energy Commodities Overall

Figure 33: Segment Relative Maturity

Named Leader Un-named Leader

0 5 10 15 20 25

AspectSolArcEntero

SAPPioneer

OATIQuorum

AbacusEnuit

MurexTrayport Contigo

AmphoraEKA

BradySunGard

Triple PointAllegro

OLF

Figure 34: Known VendorsConsultants and Systems Integrators Only

NAM Eur Asia



There is little geographic variation except perhapsfor Trayport Contigo which is much better knownby European service companies.

In terms of market leadership perceptions, theresults are also similar (Figure 35). The Consultantsand Integrators favor OpenLink followed closely byAllegro. Fewer of them proportionately don’tknow who the market leader is and another smallproportion doubt that there is a market leader atall. Other vendors obtained just a single response.

As perhaps might be expected, on average theconsultants and integrators do keep abreast ofdevelopments among the vendors more diligentlythan the broader sample, as shown in Figure 36.

In terms of market leadership perceptions acrossthe range of commodities, the table belowsummarizes only the consultants and integratorsviews of market leadership. By and large, theresults are the same but there are some subtledifferences outside of the energy commodities.

Category Leader – All Respondents Leader – Consultants/Sis only

Overall ETRM/CTRM OpenLink OpenLink

Energy OpenLink OpenLinkElectric Power OpenLink OpenLinkNatural Gas Allegro AllegroOil and Oil Products OpenLink AllegroCoal Allegro/OpenLink AllegroAgs and Softs OpenLink Allegro/Triple PointCotton, Sugar, Cocoa etc. EKA EKAGrains Triple Point EKAEdible Oils OpenLink Triple PointBase Metals Brady BradyPrecious Metals OpenLink Triple PointRecyclables OpenLink Brady/Triple Point

Shipping Triple Point Triple PointCloud Delivery Allegro/Aspect Enterprise/OpenLink SunGard Kiodex

0 5 10 15

Triple PointEKA

SunGardSAP

Generation 10VariesNone

Don't knowAllegro

OLF

Figure 35: Overall LeadershipConsultants and Systems Integrators Only

NAM Eur Asia

71%

21%

8%

Figure 36: How closely do you follow theETRM/CTRM markets?Consultants and System Integrators Only

Avidly Occasionally During Systems Selection Only



When it comes to the features and functions of anETRM or CTRM that are important, the generalrespondents and the Consultants/SI’s generallyagree (Figure 37).

The issues are the same but the order vaguelydifferent.

However, there are one or two glaring differencesthat are interesting. While Consultants and SI’swould rank ‘Supplied by a top vendor’ very highly,the general respondents do not. Similarly, theConsultants and SI’s rank ‘modern modulararchitecture’ and ‘graphical and drill-downanalytics and reporting’ as much more importantthan the general respondents. This suggests thatConsultants and SI’s are more likely to look atbrand and technical architectures/UI’s as buyingcriteria where the general user might notnecessarily view that those factors as highly.

While overall, the differences between the generalresponses and those of the SI’s and consultants arebroadly similar, there are a number of small butperhaps important differences that might beuseful for buyers to understand.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Available at a competitive price

Comprehensive treasury support

Physical logisitics

Quality support available by…

Ability to deploy in the cloud

Comprehensive credit risk

Ability to personalize user interface

Comprehensive market/price risk

Graphical and drill-down…

Modern Modular Architecture

Quality Implementation Service…

Supplied by a top vendor

Multi Currency

Quality support by vendor

Physical Support

Financial Support

Multi Commodity Capable

Figure 37: CTRM AttributesConsultants and Integrators Only

Critical Important Average Low Not Important

Quality ImplementationServices Provided by Vendor

Vendor

Graphical and drill-downanalytics and reporting

Quality Support Availablefrom Consultants



TrendsBy taking previous data from CommodityPointVendor Perception studies, it is possible toexamine trends over the last several years in termsof brand awareness and market leadershipperception development. Due to the differingmake-up of the samples both geographically andby industry segment, there are some discrepanciesthat are visible in the overall trends. For example,since this latest survey is far more broader-basedboth geographically and by industry segment thanthe earlier CommodityPoint surveys, it wouldappear that overall values have dropped. Valuesfor the top 4 vendors, as shown in Figure 38, haveall declined from the 2011 CommodityPointsurvey. However, that survey was highly energy-centric and focused on North America and Europe– a more mature subset of the sample obtained byComTech.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3

Figure 38: Brand Awareness Over Time

OpenLink Triple Point

Allegro SunGard

SolArc Ventyx/ABB

Navita Murex

Amphora Brady

Trayport Contigo EnCompass

Woodland Solutions SAS

EKA OATI



It is interesting is to look at the broader trends.Note that Triple Point’s brand recognition haseroded significantly faster than that of OpenLink,Allegro and SunGard from first to last in the groupof four with the major fall occurring since itsacquisition by ION, with Triple Point’s marketvisibility having declined significantly since thechange of ownership. Additionally, Solarc wasbuilding brand strength, but since its acquisition byOpenLink, the Solarc brand has understandablydisappeared. On the other hand, OpenLink’s brandstrength did not increase as a result of thatacquisition; given that company’s relative marketstrength, it would be assumed that those that wereaware of Solarc were also previously aware ofOpenLink.

Also showing declines are Ventyx, who, despitehaving made numerous acquisitions to enter theETRM/CTRM space, has not been visibly active inthe space for the last couple of years. Anothercompany showing decline is OATI, but this may bemore likely due to the declining relative numbersof North American Power responses in the samplesthrough time. Two vendors do show net gains overthe period – Brady PLC and EKA. This is likely to bepartly due to the more diverse nature of thesample; but, more importantly, it is also likelyreflective of their efforts to challenge the top 4vendors.

Market leadership perception trends are alsointeresting (Figure 39), but also must be viewedcautiously for the same reasons as outlinedpreviously.

OpenLink’s position has declined slightly over timeas the market has matured, with more vendorscontinually challenging the company for marketshare. Meanwhile, Allegro goes from strength tostrength and is indicated to be the current topchallenger. Triple Point’s position has erodedconsiderably and even possibly collapsed since itsacquisition by ION, while SunGard has seen arecovery from a few difficult years for thecompany. That the gap between the top fourvendors and everyone else may even be increasingin perceived market leadership terms is shown bythe fall of ‘other’ vendors, although this may alsoowe much to the broader-based sample.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2008 2009 2011 2013

Figure 39: Leadership Perceptions over Time

OpenLink Triple Point Allegro

SunGard SolArc Other



About Allegro

Allegro is a leading provider of commodity value chain and risk management (CVCRM) software for power and gas utilities, refiners,producers, traders and commodity consumers. With more than 30 years of deep industry expertise, Allegro provides real-timeintelligence and decision-making capabilities, from the source of the commodity (ground), through transportation, to thecommodity consumer. Allegro’s software provides the global intelligence needed to manage physical and financial positions, and tooptimize their assets and portfolios using tools that quantify and mitigate risks. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Allegro has officesin Calgary, Houston, London, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich, along with a global network of partners.

Allegro pioneered the energy trading and risk management (ETRM) industry as the first vendor to offer software for trackingtransactions and mitigating risks in commodity trading markets. The software provides enhanced visibility across trade books,within a single system of record, allowing companies to leverage the power of real-time decision making. It provides accuratedownstream data to manage commodity acquisition, storage, transportation, optimization and sale. Further, it manages logisticsand the interplay between commodities and demand-side intelligence helping customers better monetize assets.

Solutions

Allegro designs and delivers the industry’s leading multi-commodity trading, transaction and risk management software. Allegroprovides agile ETRM software solutions that deliver the fastest time to benefit with the least risk. Our advanced softwarearchitecture and component based approach allow Allegro to rapidly deploy agile solutions to perfectly match customer prioritiesand deliver a high return on investment.

Allegro solutions help companies:

Improve Position Analysis and Valuation - Make better business decisions with accurate and instantaneous views ofpositions and valuationImprove Trader Productivity - Streamline and automate trade processes to reduce the risk and cost of dual-entry andmanual processes to allow maximum attention to profitable opportunitiesManage Market Price Exposure - Mitigate exposure to volatile market prices with effective hedging and real-time updates,comprehensive metrics, and simulationManage Counterparty Exposure - Mitigate exposure with credit and collateral management, and a flexible credit scoringprocessAchieve Hedge Accounting Compliance – Manage compliance with accuracy and confidenceManage Liquidity Exposure - Manage cash and capital adequacy with efficiency

Delivery

Allegro energy trading and risk management software delivers the fastest realization of business objectives and greatest flexibilitywith minimal risk and disruption to our customers’ business. The key to this approach is that every effort centers around a specificbusiness objective. This focus minimizes the number of specific business processes involved in achieving the objective. It alsominimizes the number of technology changes required and minimizes the number of personnel affected. The result of all thesesteps is a faster realization of business objectives for our customers, better cost/benefit alignment, and higher total benefits overtime.

Deployment

Allegro offers software delivery on premise or in the cloud through Amazon Web Services. Customers can manage theimplementation process or elect to have a turnkey project through Allegro’s Managed Services offering.

Customers

Allegro delivers solutions to power and gas utilities, refiners, producers, traders, and commodity consumers worldwide. Todaymore than 3,000 users rely on Allegro to manage trading, risk management, physical logistics, and regulatory compliance acrosstheir portfolios in gas, power, coal, crude, petroleum, emissions, and other commodity types.

http://allegrodev.com/



About Allegro (Cont’d)

Technology

Allegro business components are deployed as independent components in a Service Oriented Architecture under Microsoft .NETtechnology. Allegro’s software architecture has been designed with six key areas of focus:

Standardization - Use of industry standards dramatically reduces the cost and time required for establishing networkinfrastructure, developing interfaces, support personnel, and systems administration.Usability - Ease of learning and ease of use are highly correlated to the proficiency of users. Highly proficient users will usethe software more productively, generating a significant increase in business benefits. Allegro adheres to MicrosoftWindows conventions for ease of learning and ease of use.Reliability - When users trust the software to be available when needed and to provide consistent and accurate results, itreduces reconciliation processes, support costs, and distractions from operational business processes.Connectivity - Sharing data between systems eliminates the costs of redundant data capture, improves the accuracy ofinformation, and greatly accelerates the execution of critical business processes.Adaptability - Software must be as dynamic as the business it serves. Adaptability to change creates the innovation andcontinuous process improvement that organizations require. Allegro Software Extension technology allows Allegro 8 to beadapted to your unique and new business processes.Scalability - Rapid response to user requests facilitates multiple iterations and better decision making. As transactionalvolumes grow and become increasingly complex, rapid response becomes even more important. Allegro Grid technologyis a key enabler of scalability and performance.

Foundation Methodology

The implementation of trading and risk management systems is inherently complex, and for more than two decades firms havestruggled with the difficulties. Today, the situation is dramatically different with the introduction of Allegro’s FoundationImplementation Methodology. The Foundation approach relies on the most rigorous scope definition process in the industry todeliver highly predictable project execution, and has an impressive string of successes. The methodology includes the systematicconfiguration of Allegro 8 to meet each customer’s unique business or integration needs.

Support

Allegro provides a comprehensive customer support system to ensure customer success. Allegro’s support options range fromaccess during business hours, twenty-four hour support, or on-site support. Each customer chooses the level of support that meetstheir unique needs. Highly trained, experienced technical support staff is available to respond quickly to ensure customers aregetting the most value from their Allegro solution.

Employees & Location

The Company employs over 250 professionals in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Allegro has a talented team ofseasoned industry experts with knowledge spanning the global energy and commodity markets. To ensure employees are currentwith industry and technology trends, Allegro invests significantly in training, education, and research. Headquartered in Dallas,Texas, Allegro has offices in Calgary, Houston, London, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.

Partners

Allegro collaborates with a broad network of partners to provide leading solutions and services to address each customer’s uniquebusiness needs. Our partners are classified into four main categories: Consulting Partners, Data Partners, Software Partners andExchange Partners. These partners provide the consulting and implementation services, connectivity, and integration that supportgreater operational efficiency and competitive advantage of our customers.

Allegro U

A well trained user community is essential to maximize the business benefits that our customers can realize with Allegro 8.Consequently, Allegro has made significant investments to develop Allegro U, which today offers more than 80 technical coursesacross 8 industry and business tracks. Courses are offered both on line and on site. This education is also used extensively by Allegrostaff and our partners. Allegro’s commitment to education is unmatched in our industry.

To learn more visit: www.allegrodev.com.

http://www.allegrodev.com/



About OpenLink

The global leader in Transaction Lifecycle Management (TLM) software

For two decades, OpenLink has provided leading-edge technology solutions to an increasingly diverse client base. Building on ourpioneering development of cross-asset trading and risk management products for energy and financial services companies, we nowoffer a suite of solutions designed to meet the specific needs of clients within three broad categories:

Financial Services

A barrage of regulatory initiatives is transforming the landscape in commodities and derivatives trading. New OTCregulations will demand changes to the way financial institutions clear and report trades, and manage collateral. At thesame time, unprecedented pressure on operating costs is driving a renewed focus on costs and efficiency.

Banks, asset managers and other financial services institutions use OpenLink for trading, risk management and operationsprocessing, enabling them to better address the demands of all stakeholders.

Commodities

Globalization of operations and a proliferation of contract types mean processors and manufacturers face increasedcomplexity in managing inventory and forward commitment of commodities. There’s more risk of supplier default andprice volatility continues. At the same time, unprecedented pressure on operating costs is driving a renewed focus on costsand efficiency.

For major energy and hydrocarbon consumers, rising fuel and feedstock costs, continued volatility, and thinning marginsmean companies face increased complexity in forecasting consumption, negotiating the best contracts and managingprice risk. OpenLink products provide these companies with the operational insights necessary to address risks andoptimize production.

Energy

OpenLink provides complete trade and risk management solutions for energy and power companies in all areas of thesupply chain, helping our customers effectively manage natural gas, power, coal, crude & refined products and NGLS.

Energy trading companies, utilities, generators, producers and processors around the globe rely on OpenLink solutions tohelp minimize risks and maximize profitability in an uncertain and increasingly complex energy market place.

OpenLink provides these companies complete solutions for planning, procuring, processing, managing, moving and tradingcommodities and energy, right along the workflow from trade capture to accounting, risk, reporting and compliance.

With hundreds of established clients, OpenLink technologies are the preferred solution among leading energy and commoditycompanies, financial services firms, multinational corporations, public utilities, hedge funds and central banks.

Maybe your need is highly-focused on trading or derivatives, or optimization of physical assets, or logistics. Perhaps you areseeking a Treasury Management System, or want to benefit from truly integrated firm-wide risk management. Or, your goal couldbe to move your organization toward total margin and value chain management.

Whatever your particular objective, OpenLink provides a suite of integrated, configurable and extensible solutions that can helporganizations improve efficiency, make better use of capital and generate greater risk awareness around business decision making.

Technology is only part of the story

At OpenLink, we recognize that technological innovation and sophistication are only the beginning. Our software engineers andbusiness experts are committed to supporting our clients completely. This relationship enables us to constantly refine and adaptour solutions as markets change and business needs evolve.

Our ability to understand clients and their businesses means that implementation - including full integration with internal systems -can be achieved with unrivalled speed and rigor. What's more, training can be tailored to ensure you get the most out of yourinvestment in technology.

To find out more about OpenLink and our solutions, please visit www.olf.com

http://www.olf.com/



About JustCommodity

JustCommodity is a leading software solutions provider catering to the commodity trading industry, particularly for the trading ofSoft Commodities. Our solution, ContraXcentral™, is a web-based contract management and execution software suite speciallydesigned to support the needs of commodity trading houses. The proprietary solution provides the framework for commoditytrading companies to manage their trades, hedging, and risk management requirements.

Incorporated since 2002, JustCommodity has developed deep domain knowledge in the physical commodity markets, providingindustry-focused solutions that meet the real-world business challenges of its clients. Embedding industry best practices fortrading, logistics, and risk management into its product, ContraXcentral™; coupled with dynamic real-time reporting tools, hasyielded one of the most powerful Commodity Trading & Risk Management solutions in the industry.

JustCommodity’s CxC™ used a robust architecture with a very thin, fast and efficient data transaction to handle multiplecommodities requirement ranging from physical information to financial settlement. The design of the core platform is to allowdrill-down information up to the source level to provide a flexible extraction for presentation layer to display its data efficiently.Scalability of integration with various external sources had been assigned throughout multiple layered to ensure maximumefficiency during data input/output.

The software does not only benefit traders but senior management as well by providing a bird’s eye view of the entire team, on areal time basis, as it brings- trading, risk management and operations on a single platform.

We take pride in providing a holistic solution which helps streamline back office and logistics process resulting in cost savings andoperational efficiency by seamlessly getting rid of tedious excel sheets.

The aim is to continuously innovate and develop advanced trading and risk management solutions which incorporate industry bestpractices and adhere to international compliance standards. These innovations are translated in to value for our clients through ourprofessional services and consulting arms, allowing them the freedom to trade profitably and with accountability anywhere in theworld.

Some of the features of the system are as follows:

A holistic solution which helps streamline your back office and logistics process resulting in cost savings and operationalefficiency by seamlessly getting rid of tedious Microsoft excel sheets.Pro-active management of price, credit, currency, material and operational risks through consolidation of positions and realtime reportingVisibility into Long Short Positions, Mark-To-Market , Trading Performance, Currency Exposures and Hedge CoverageIncreased efficiency of trade lifecycle by seamlessly integrating front, middle and back office processes from trade capture tofulfilment to settlement – all within a single and automated information environment.Interface with physical and financial exchanges and market data sources like Bloomberg and Reuters for market visibility,tracking and statutory reporting.Automate Audit and regulatory reporting while seamlessly integrating with any ERP system.

To find out more about JustCommodity please visit us JustCommodity.com

http://www.justcommodity.com/



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

About Commodity Technology Advisory llc

Commodity Technology Advisory (ComTech) is the leading analyst organization covering the Energy and Commodity Trading and RiskManagement (E/CTRM) technology markets. We provide invaluable insights, backed by primary research and years of experience, into theissues and trends affecting both the users and providers of the applications and services that are crucial for success in markets constantlyroiled by globalization, regulation and innovation.

Disclosures: At the time of this writing, many of the vendors mentioned in this report did have established commercial relationships withComTech, including the research sponsors and advertisers. None of these companies influenced, in any way, the authors’ analysis oropinions; and all such analysis and opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the report authors.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19901 Southwest FreewaySugar Land TX 77479+1 281 207 5412

Prague, Czech Republic+420 775 718 112

ComTechAdvisory.comEmail: [email protected]

http://www.comtechadvisory.com/