2018 Brand Awareness Study · 2019. 1. 22. · Brand Awareness Brand Perceptions Methodology: The...

Wave 2: November 2018

2018 Brand Awareness Study Analysis and Simulation Software

Brand Awareness Study

WAVE II

November 2018


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Objectives:

This study was conducted by Peerless Research Group (PRG) for Digital Engineering magazine. The research was done to

better understand awareness and usage of simulation and analysis software among design engineers and analysts. This study

is Wave 2 and compares results to the benchmark study launched in 2016.

Specifically, the research examines:

Respondent Profile

Purchase Process

Product and Brand Attributes

Brand Awareness

Brand Perceptions

Methodology:

The methodology in each wave was identical. An email invitation asking for participation in this study was sent to subscribers of Digital Engineering magazine.

The email included a URL linked to a dedicated website that contained the questionnaire.

As incentive to respond, all participants are offered the chance to win a $500 Amazon.com e-card.

Field dates and response for both studies follows:

2

Field dates # of returns Margin of error *

2016 July/August 603 4.1% +/-

2018 October 591 4.1% +/-

* The margin of error for the 2018 study is +/- 4.1%, meaning if the entire

population responded, results may vary by +/- 4.1%.


RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND

3


RESPONDENTS’ ROLE IN THE USAGE, EVALUATION AND/OR PURCHASE OF

SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

31%

35%

16%

12%

6%

30%

40%

16%

10%

4%

I am the primary decision-

maker

I have input (recommend,

specify, etc.) into the

decision-process but

someone else is the primary

decision-maker

I am a member of a decision-

making team/committee

I’m a user and not involved in

the evaluation and/or

purchase process

Neither use, nor

evaluate/purchase

2016 2018

4

Which best describes your involvement in the usage, evaluation and/or purchase of simulation and analysis software for either your company or for other companies' use?


YEARS OF ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE

4% 3%5%

9%

79%

2% 3% 4%7%

84%

Less than one year 1 - 3 years 4 - 6 years 7 - 10 years More than 10 years

2016 2018

5

How many years of engineering experience do you have?

2016 2018

Average # years engineering experience 9 17

Ranges were expanded in 2018 which

accounts for a higher # of years experience


PRIMARY ROLE OR JOB FUNCTION

28%

19%

13%

12%

8%

4%

4%

3%

9%

30%

16%

19%

13%

7%

4%

3%

2%

6%

Product or System Design

Engineering

Engineering Management

Engineering Analysis

Research & Development

Corporate Management

IT Management

Test/Measurement/Quality

Inspection

Industrial Design

Other

2016 2018

48%

23%

5% 4%

20%

50%

20%

3% 3%

24%

Mechanical

Engineering

(ME)

Electrical

Engineering

(EE)

Quality

Engineering

(QE)

Industrial

Design

Engineering

(IDE)

Other

2016 2018

6

RESPONDENT’S ENGINEERING DEGREE(S)

Other degrees include:

Aerospace Engineering

Physics

Computer Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Civil Engineering

Industrial Engineering

What is your primary role or job function? What engineering degree(s) do you have?


COMPANY’S PRIMARY PRODUCT/SERVICE

10%

14%

10%

9%

9%

7%

8%

6%

3%

4%

2%

17%

15%

13%

9%

9%

9%

6%

6%

5%

5%

4%

4%

15%

Aerospace, Aviation, Defense

Industrial Machinery & Products

Automotive

Electronic Products & Equipment

Consumer Products

Government or Military

Medical Products & Equipment

Power or Energy (oil, gas,

electricity, solar)

Communications Systems &

Equipment

Construction

Materials

Other

2016

2018

1-49

27%

50-99

10%100-499

21%50-999

7%

1,000 or

more

35%

7

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT COMPANY

2016 2018

Average # of employees 454 481

What is the primary product/service provided by your company? How many employees work at your company?


PURCHASE DECISION PROCESS FOR

ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE

8


ATTRIBUTE RATINGS

91% 90%

66%

61% 59%

45%

92% 90%

68%

60%

53%

45%

Reliability Quality Company’s engineering knowledge

Customer Service Affordability Innovation

2016 2018

9

How important are each of the following characteristics when evaluating analysis and modeling solutions and brands for possible purchase?


LIKELIHOOD OF PURCHASING ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE DURING THE

NEXT 12 MONTHS

5%

9%

26%

42%

19%

6%

10%

31%

33%

20%

Extremely likely Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely

2016 2018

34,860

41,415

2016 2018

2016 2018

10

How likely are you to purchase analysis and simulation software over the next 12 months?

Number of DE readers likely to purchase

analysis and simulation software during the

next 12 months.

Note: Audience estimates based on Summer 2016 and

Fall 2018 BPA Publisher’s Statement and Total

Audience Profile


COMPANIES USING AN APPROVED VENDOR LIST OR

“SHORT LIST” FOR ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE

31% 33%

41%44%

28%23%

2016 2018

I don’t know

No

Yes

11

12%

21%

35%

9%

24%

8%

37%

30%

7%

18%

1 2 3 4 5+

2016 2018

NUMBER OF BRANDS ON COMPANIES’ APPROVED

BRANDS LIST

Does your company currently use an approved vendor list or “short list”

for analysis and simulation software?About how many brands are on this list?

2016 2018

Avg. # of brands on company’s ‘short list’ 3.1 2.9


FREQUENCY WITH WHICH APPROVED BRANDS LISTS ARE EVALUATED

8%

33%

5%

5%

6%

43%

4%

36%

6%

9%

4%

42%

Every 6 months Annually Every 18 months Every 2 years Every 3 years or

more

No time

table/Whenever

necessary

2016 2018

12

How often are these lists evaluated?


PREFERENCE FOR PURCHASING ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE

55% 54%

12% 11%

27% 31%

6% 4%

2016 2018

Other

Via a subscription

Via a pool of

credits/tokens that

can be exchanged

for software use

Purchase a

perpetual license

13

What is your preference for purchasing analysis and simulation software?


THE ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS USING ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION

SOFTWARE WITHIN RESPONDENTS’ ORGANIZATIONS

70%

45%

40%

16% 17%

8% 6%

72%

47%

30%

17% 16%

7% 6%

Product designers Analysts Engineering

management

Non-product

development

engineers

Operations Executive

management

Other

2016 2018

14

Which of the following (engineering) functions in your organization use analysis and simulation software?


ESTIMATED SPEND ON ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE

39%

17%

10% 11% 12% 12%

33%

17%

8%

14% 14% 14%

Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $299,999 $300,000 or more

2016 2018

15

2016 2018

Average spend $78,200 $85,480

About how much do you estimate your company will spend on analysis and simulation software in 2016?


CHANNELS USED FOR PURCHASING ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

SOFTWARE PRODUCTS

53%

31%29%

24%

14% 14%

5% 5%4%

52%

32%28%

26%

16%13%

8%5%

3%

Direct from

software

developers

Distributors VARs, Systems

Integrators

Internet Retailers Consultants Catalogs Mail/phone

order

Other

2016 2018

16

From which sources do you currently purchase engineering design and analysis software products?


BRANDS IN USE

33.2%

26.0%

28.4%

15.0%

15.0%

8.3%

9.3%

8.5%

4.0%

2.1%

1.7%

1.0%

1.7%

39.9%

36.9%

33.2%

25.40%

21.6%

19.8%

14.6%

11.2%

10.4%

8.6%

7.1%

3.7%

3.40%

2.2%

2.20%

1.9%

Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk CFD, etc.)

ANSYS (Fluent, ANSYS Mechanical, etc.)

Dassault Systèmes (3DEXPERIENCE, SIMULIA, Abaqus, etc.)

MathWorks

Siemens PLM Software (Femap, LMS Samtech, CD-adapco STAR-CCM+, NX, etc.)

PTC (PTC Creo Simulate, Creo Elements, etc.)

COMSOL (COMSOL Multiphysics)

Altair (OptiStruct, HyperWorks, RADIOSS, etc.)

MSC Software (Marc, MSC Fatigue)

Livermore Software Technology Corp. (LSTC) (LS-DYNA)

SimScale

SIMSOLID

MultiMechanics

Vanderplaats Research & Development (VR&D) (Genesis)

Prenscia/HBM

ESRD (StressCheck)

2016

2018

17

Which companies’ analysis and simulation software do you currently use?

NA

NA

NA


BRANDS PLANNED FOR PURCHASE

37.0%

34.9%

30.2%

35.8%

33.4%

22.9%

25.2%

22.6%

19.4%

13.2%

18.5%

17.9%

12.9%

40.5%

39.2%

38.3%

35.7%

35.5%

33.0%

26.3%

23.8%

21.6%

18.1%

17.6%

16.3%

15.4%

14.5%

14.1%

10.6%



MathWorks








ESRD (StressCheck)

SIMSOLID

SimScale


MultiMechanics

Prenscia/HBM

2016 2018

18

Which companies’ analysis and simulation software will you consider for purchase over the next 12 months? Base:341/56

NA

NA

NA


OVERALL UNAIDED BRAND AWARENESS

19

• ANALYSIS & SIMULATION SOFTWARE

• MULTIPHYSICS ANALYSIS AND MODELING

• COMPOSITE ANALYSIS AND MODELING

• FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) AND MODELING

• COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) ANALYSIS AND MODELING

• NOISE, VIBRATION AND HARSHNESS (NVH) ANALYSIS AND MODELING

• ELECTROMAGNETIC ANALYSIS AND MODELING

• MULTIBODY ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

• MATHEMATICS SOFTWARE

To capture overall unaided awareness, respondents were asked to write in which brands come to

mind within each category. Respondents were not shown any brand listings.


ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION SOFTWARE

20

Category

base size

The margin of error when

comparing results to the

two studies is . . .

2016 503

+/- 6.2%

2018 531


ANALYSIS & SIMULATION SOFTWARE

21

Which companies come to mind as providers of analysis and modeling software?

Brands receiving 2% or more

27.0%

18.5%

12.9%

5.4%

9.0%

3.8%

2.6%

25.1%

16.4%

7.4%

7.0%

6.0%

5.3%

2.6%

2.1%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Autodesk

Siemens PLM Software

COMSOL

MathWorks

Hexagon AB/MSC

PTC

2016

2018

1st mention/ Top of Mind - Unaided Awareness

Includes 2016 2018

SOLIDWORKS 10.1% 9.8%

SIMULIA 2.0% 2.1%

Top 3

<2.0%

Includes 2016 2018

Mentor Graphics ** 2.6%

** Mentor Graphics was acquired by Siemens in 2017


ANALYSIS & SIMULATION SOFTWARE

22

Which companies come to mind as providers of analysis and modeling software?

53.1%

50.5%

25.6%

15.7%

20.9%

12.3%

12.7%

12.9%

5.0%

9.2%

50.3%

46.5%

25.1%

23.9%

22.4%

18.3%

16.6%

12.6%

6.8%

4.9%

2.6%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Autodesk


COMSOL

Hexagon AB/MSC

MathWorks

PTC

Nastran (Unspecified)

Simscale

Altair

2016

2018

Overall Unaided Awareness

Includes 2016 2018


Abaqus 6.2% 4.2%

SIMULIA 5.6% 4.9%

Brands receiving 2% or more

Includes 2016 2018

MATLAB 8.5% 8.5%

<2.0%

Top 3

Includes 2016 2018




MULTIPHYSICS

ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

23

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 361

+/- 7.9%

2018 256

Wave 2: November 2018 24

38.9%

24.1%

3.8%

2.8%

6.4%

40.0%

27.4%

4.7%

4.3%

3.9%

3.1%

1.6%

COMSOL

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

MathWorks

PTC


Autodesk

2016

2018

MULTIPHYSICS ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

Which companies come to mind as providers of multiphysics analysis and modeling software?

Includes 2016 2018

SIMULIA 2.0%


Brands receiving 1.5% or more

<2%

<2%

<2.0%Top 3

Includes 2016 2018

Mathcad <2.0% 2.0%


55.4%

41.6%

18.9%

13.9%

7.8%

5.1%

3.9%

3.1%

54.7%

41.4%

15.2%

9.8%

9.8%

3.1%

6.6%

6.6%

4.3%

COMSOL

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Autodesk


Hexagon AB/MSC

PTC

MathWorks

Nastran (unspecified)

2016

2018

MULTIPHYSICS ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

Which companies come to mind as providers of multiphysics analysis and modeling software?


Includes 2016 2018


SIMULIA 3.1% 3.5%

Abaqus 3.9% 2.4%

Includes 2016 2018

Pro/ENGINEER <2% 3.9%

Includes 2016 2018

MATLAB <2% 2.7%


Top 3

<2%


COMPOSITE


26

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 307

+/- 8.9%

2018 197


COMPOSITE ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

27


Which companies come to mind as providers of composite analysis and modeling software?

22.5%

24.5%

9.5%

10.1%

5.2%

5.5%

23.4%

16.2%

10.2%

6.1%

6.6%

4.1%

3.6%

3.1%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Autodesk

Hexagon AB/MSC


COMSOL

MathWorks

Analyswift

2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018



<2%

<2%

Top 3


COMPOSITE ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

28


Which companies come to mind as providers of composite analysis and modeling software?

31.9%

39.0%

20.9%

16.3%

11.7%

10.8%

4.9%

9.1%

4.6%

2.0%

2.9%

37.1%

32.0%

18.8%

16.8%

12.1%

10.7%

6.1%

4.6%

5.1%

4.6%

4.1%

2.5%

2.0%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Hexagon AB/MSC

Autodesk


COMSOL

PTC

Altair


MathWorks

Analyswift

Helius

Livermore

2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018


Abaqus 6.5% 5.1%

SIMULIA 5.2% 2.5%


<2%

<2%

Top 3


FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA)

AND MODELING SOFTWARE

29

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 403

+/- 7.6%

2018 279


FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) AND MODELING SOFTWARE

30


Which companies come to mind as providers of finite element analysis (FEA) and modeling software?

30.5%

24.4%

10.7%

3.7%

4.7%

4.5%

2.0%

36.6%

17.2%

7.5%

4.3%

5.4%

5.4%

3.6%

2.2%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Autodesk

Hexagon AB/MSC

COMSOL


MathWorks


2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018


SIMULIA 2.7% 2.5%


Top 3

<2%


FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) AND MODELING SOFTWARE

31


Which companies come to mind as providers of finite element analysis (FEA) and modeling software?

55.1%

52.4%

14.9%

25.6%

16.6%

11.7%

11.9%

6.5%

7.2%

2.0%

2.5%

56.6%

42.3%

9.0%

21.2%

19.4%

15.8%

11.8%

11.8%

9.7%

4.0%

3.6%

2.5%

2.5%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

Hexagon AB/MSC

Autodesk

COMSOL


PTC


Altair

Livermore

MathWorks

Cosmos

Simscale

2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018


Abaqus 7.5% 6.1%

SIMULIA 6.2% 4.3%


Includes 2016 2018

Pro/Engineer <2% 2.9%

Creo 3.0% 2.9%

Includes 2016 2018

Algor 2.0% 2.2%

Top 3

<2%

<2%


COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

(CFD) ANALYSIS AND MODELING

SOFTWARE

32

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 360

+/- 7.9%

2018 252


COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

33


35.3%

17.8%

10.3%

7.8%

12.0%

40.5%

11.5%

10.0%

5.2%

8.3%

2.0%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

COMSOL

Autodesk


MathWorks

2016

2018

<2%

Which companies come to mind as providers of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and modeling software?

Includes 2016 2018

Fluent 8.1% 9.1%

Includes 2016 2018



Top 3

Includes 2016 2018




COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

34


54.2%

26.7%

20.6%

19.5%

17.8%

3.3%

3.3%

4.4%

61.1%

22.6%

20.2%

18.7%

17.9%

5.2%

6.0%

2.8%

2.8%

2.4%

2.4%

2.4%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

COMSOL

Autodesk


Hexagon AB/MSC

MathWorks

SimFlow

SimScale

PTC

Star

Flowtherm

2016

2018

Which companies come to mind as providers of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and modeling software?

Includes 2016 2018

Fluent 12.2% 14.3%

Includes 2016 2018


Includes 2016 2018

CD-adapco 10.6% 2.4%



Top 3

<2%

<2%

<2%

<2%



NOISE, VIBRATION AND HARSHNESS

(NVH) ANALYSIS AND MODELING

SOFTWARE

35

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 243

+/- 9.8%

2018 159


NOISE, VIBRATION AND HARSHNESS (NVH) ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

36


Which companies come to mind as providers of noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) analysis and modeling software?

19.4%

11.1%

7.4%

14.8%

13.6%

3.7%

2.9%

2.1%

19.5%

12.6%

12.0%

9.4%

8.8%

5.7%

5.0%

3.2%

ANSYS

Dassault Systèmes

COMSOL

Hexagon AB/MSC


Altair

B&K

MathWorks

2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018



Includes 2016 2018

HyperWorks <2% 2.6%

Top 3


NOISE, VIBRATION AND HARSHNESS (NVH) ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE

37


Which companies come to mind as providers of noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) analysis and modeling software?

25.9%

11.5%

18.1%

17.7%

8.2%

25.5%

2.5%

4.1%

2.5%

35.9%

23.9%

23.3%

20.1%

14.5%

13.2%

6.9%

5.7%

5.0%

3.8%

ANSYS

COMSOL

Dassault Systèmes

Siemens PLM

Software/Mentor

Altair

Hexagon AB/MSC

MathWorks

B&K

ESI

Autodesk

2016

2018

Includes 2016 2018


SIMULIA 3.7% 4.4%

Abaqus 2.9% 3.2%


Includes 2016 2018

LMS 5.8% 3.2%

Includes 2016 2018

HyperWorks <2% 4.4%

Top 3

<2%


ELECTROMAGNETIC


38

Category base

size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 278

+/- 9.1%

2018 197


ELECTROMAGNETIC ANALYSIS AND MODELING

39


31.7%

14.4%

9.4%

2.5%

2.9%

35.0%

18.3%

7.1%

7.1%

3.1%

3.1%

2.5%

ANSYS

COMSOL


Dassault Systèmes

Altair

Mathworks

Keysight

2016

2018

Which companies come to mind as providers of electromagnetic analysis and modeling software?

Includes 2016 2018

CST 4.7% 3.1%



Top 3

<2%

<2% Includes 2016 2018




ELECTROMAGNETIC ANALYSIS AND MODELING

40


40.7%

24.8%

19.4%

6.5%

7.9%

9.7%

5.8%

4.7%

3.6%

48.7%

27.9%

17.3%

13.2%

5.6%

5.4%

5.1%

4.6%

4.1%

4.1%

3.1%

ANSYS

COMSOL

Dassault Systèmes

Siemen PLM Software

Keysight

Infolytica

Remcon

Altair

MathWorks

Hexagon AB/MSC

Cadence

2016

2018

Which companies come to mind as providers of electromagnetic analysis and modeling software?

Includes 2016 2018

CST 9.4% 7.6%



Top 3

<2%

<2%


Includes 2016 2018



MATHEMATICS SOFTWARE

41

Category

base size

The margin of error

when comparing

results to the two

studies is . . .

2016 457

+/- 7.2%

2018 296



42


Which companies come to mind as providers of mathematics software?

23.7%

32.1%

8.8%

6.8%

38.9%

28.7%

9.1%

4.4%

2.3%

MathWorks

PTC

Wolfram

Maplesoft

COMSOL

Includes 2016 2018

MATLAB 23.0% 30.8%

Includes 2016 2018

Mathcad 19.0% 19.9%

Includes 2016 2018

Mathematica 4.4% 6.4%


Top 3

<2%



43


Which companies come to mind as providers of mathematics software?

46.6%

43.7%

23.4%

18.0%

3.3%

2.4%

2.4%

55.8%

42.6%

26.4%

17.9%

4.7%

3.0%

3.0%

2.0%

MathWorks

PTC

Wolfram

Maplesoft

Microsoft (EXCEL)

COMSOL

SageMath

MathSoft

Includes 2016 2018

MATLAB 33.7% 41.9%

Includes 2016 2018

Maple 9.4% 12.8%

Includes 2016 2018

Mathcad 30.2% 31.8%

Includes 2016 2018

Mathematica 8.8% 17.6%


Top 3

<2%


3D PRINTING/ADDITIVE

MANUFACTURING SIMULATION

SOFTWARE

44

Category

base size

+/- @ 95%

confidence interval

2018 190 +/- 7.4%


3D PRINTING/ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SIMULATION SOFTWARE

45


15.8%

15.3%

9.5%

6.9%

5.8%

4.7%

3.7%

2.1%

Autodesk

Dassault Systèmes

Stratasys

ANSYS

3D Systems

PTC


Altair

2018

Which companies come to mind as providers of 3D printing/additive manufacturing simulation software?

Includes 2018

SOLIDWORKS 12.6%

SIMULIA 2.6%

Includes 2018

AutoCAD 2.1%

Brands receiving 2.0% or moreNot asked in 2016

Top 3


26.3%

24.7%

15.3%

13.7%

7.9%

6.9%

5.8%

5.3%

4.2%

3.2%

2.6%

Autodesk

Dassault Systèmes

ANSYS

Stratasys

PTC

3D Systems


Hexagon AB/MSC

Altair

Materialise

Formlabs

2018

Which companies come to mind as providers of 3D printing/additive manufacturing simulation software?

Includes 2018

SOLIDWORKS 16.3%

SIMULIA 3.2%

Includes 2018

AutoCAD 3.7%

Brands receiving 2.0% or moreNot asked in 2016


Top 3

3D PRINTING/ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SIMULATION SOFTWARE


LEVEL OF FAMILIARITY

WITH ANALYSIS & MODELING SOFTWARE

COMPANIES

47


FAMILIARITY WITH ANALYSIS AND MODELING SOFTWARE COMPANIES

75%

60%

52%

45%

45%

45%

36%

69%

63%

53%

50%

48%

48%

46%

34%

Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk

Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk CFD, etc.)


MathWorks

Dassault Systèmes (3DEXPERIENCE, SIMULIA,

Abaqus, etc.)

Siemens PLM Software (Femap, LMS Samtech,

CD-adapco STAR-CCM+, NX, etc.)




2016

2018

48

How familiar are you with each of the following of analysis and modeling software companies?

Summary Top 8 – Rated Very/Somewhat familiar

NA



25%

21%

13%

11%

9%

9%

23%

18%

16%

12%

10%

10%

10%

9%


Livermore Software Technology Corp. (LSTC) (LS-

DYNA)

SimScale

SIMSOLID

Vanderplaats Research & Development (VR&D)

(Genesis)

Prenscia/HBM

MultiMechanics

ESRD (StressCheck)

2016

2018

49


Summary Second 8 – Rated Very/Somewhat familiar

NA

NA



33%

33%

24%

22%

21%

18%

16%

12%

36%

30%

26%

31%

25%

30%

32%

22%

26%

21%

33%

31%

27%

37%

36%

28%

5%

16%

17%

16%

27%

15%

16%

38%

Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk

Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk CFD, etc.)


Dassault Systèmes (3DEXPERIENCE, SIMULIA,

Abaqus, etc.)

MathWorks


Siemens PLM Software (Simcenter, Femap, LMS

Samtech, CD-adapco STAR-CCM+, Mentor

FloTHERM, NX, etc.)



Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard of Never heard of

50


TOTAL - Top 8



10%

8%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

2%

13%

10%

11%

8%

6%

7%

7%

8%

35%

26%

21%

26%

14%

16%

17%

16%

42%

56%

63%

62%

76%

74%

74%

74%


Livermore Software Technology Corp. (LSTC) (LS-

DYNA)

SimScale

SIMSOLID

Prenscia/HBM

Vanderplaats Research & Development (VR&D)

(Genesis)

ESRD (StressCheck)

MultiMechanics

Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard of Never heard of

51


TOTAL - Second 8


BRAND PERCEPTIONS:

THE BRAND . . .

52

• BEING THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY

• HAVING THE BEST VALUE

• HAVING THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE SERVICE

• HAVING THE HIGHEST QUALITY PRODUCTS

• BEING THE MOST INNOVATIVE


THE ONE COMPANY/PRODUCT CONSIDERED THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY

25.2%

21.9%

16.4%

9.1%

2.8%

0.5%

0.5%

6.1%

3.9%

5.2%

1.6%

1.1%

1.6%

23.6%

17.7%

12.2%

10.6%

8.4%

8.0%

8.0%

8.0%

7.2%

5.1%

4.6%

3.0%

1.7%

1.3%

1.3%

0.0%


Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk CFD,

etc.)



MathWorks


ESRD (StressCheck)

SIMSOLID



MSC Software (Marc, MSC Fatigue, etc.)


MultiMechanics


Prenscia/HBM

SimScale

2016

2018

53

Which ONE company/product do you consider to be the most trustworthy?

NA

NA

NA


THE ONE COMPANY/PRODUCT CONSIDERED TO BE THE BEST VALUE

30.2%

14.7%

8.8%

7.8%

7.5%

9.1%

6.1%

1.9%

2.7%

2.4%

1.9%

1.9%

0.5%

20.8%

14.5%

13.7%

11.4%

9.0%

7.4%

5.1%

3.9%

3.5%

2.8%

2.3%

2.0%

1.6%

1.2%

0.0%

0.0%



MathWorks






SimScale



SIMSOLID


Prenscia/HBM

MultiMechanics

ESRD (StressCheck)

2016

2018

54

Which ONE company/product do you consider to be the best value?

NA

NA

NA


THE ONE COMPANY CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE SERVICE

25.1%

18.7%

12.2%

15.0%

9.2%

0.3%

3.3%

5.8%

4.4%

0.8%

0.5%

1.7%

1.4%

23.3%

13.1%

11.0%

10.6%

8.2%

8.2%

8.0%

4.5%

4.5%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

2.0%

1.6%

1.6%

1.2%


Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk

CFD, etc.)

Siemens PLM Software (Femap, LMS Samtech, CD-adapco STAR-CCM+, NX,

etc.)



MathWorks

ESRD (StressCheck)





MultiMechanics


SimScale

Prenscia/HBM

SIMSOLID

2016

2018

55

Which ONE company/product do you consider to have the most knowledgeable service?

NA

NA

NA


THE ONE COMPANY CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST QUALITY PRODUCTS

27.6%

18.0%

18.7%

10.5%

6.5%

4.3%

4.6%

1.9%

0.8%

1.3%

1.6%

0.5%

0.5%

28.3%

13.2%

12.4%

9.7%

8.9%

7.8%

5.0%

4.7%

2.7%

1.9%

1.6%

1.2%

0.8%

0.4%

0.4%

0.0%



Autodesk (Autodesk Nastran, Autodesk Simulation Mechanical, Autodesk CFD,

etc.)


MathWorks





ESRD (StressCheck)


Prenscia/HBM

MultiMechanics

SimScale

SIMSOLID


2016

2018

56

Which ONE company/product do you consider to have the highest quality products?

NA

NA

NA


THE ONE COMPANY/PRODUCT CONSIDERED TO BE THE MOST INNOVATIVE

16.2%

15.4%

11.1%

14.2%

14.2%

7.0%

6.7%

3.9%

1.7%

3.1%

1.4%

1.1%

0.3%

20.3%

15.8%

10.4%

10.0%

9.1%

7.5%

7.1%

5.0%

2.9%

2.5%

2.5%

1.7%

1.7%

1.2%

1.2%

0.8%






MathWorks



SIMSOLID


MultiMechanics


SimScale


ESRD (StressCheck)

Prenscia/HBM

2016

2018

57

Which ONE company/product do you consider to be the most innovative?

NA

NA

NA

2018 Brand Awareness Study · 2019. 1. 22. · Brand Awareness Brand Perceptions Methodology: The...

Documents

Transcript of 2018 Brand Awareness Study · 2019. 1. 22. · Brand Awareness Brand Perceptions Methodology: The...