Gartner has just released its software market share, worldwide for 2016. Many readers are interested in the winners and losers – who moved up or down the rankings. But after poking my head above ground after months holed up on the numbers, the first thing I’m interested to see is the market dynamics. How many players moved? How long is the long tail of vendors? How have the trends we’ve been hearing about all year actually impacted the bottom line?
Before I get into the answers, I need to clarify that the “ECM Market Share” is now the “Content Services Platform Market Share”. Plus, we have initiated tracking of EFSS (soon to be renamed to “Content Collaboration Platforms”). And since we just can’t help ourselves once we get a ‘changin, we introduced a new term, Content Services, to act as the higher level market into which CSP and EFSS below. This aligns us closer to the technology and purchasing patterns we’ve been seeing. For more on this I recommend reading Hanns Koehler-Kruener’s blog post Questions and answers about Content Services – an Obituary .
The high level estimates show that the Content Services Platforms market was $6.1 billion in 2016, up from $5.6 billion in 2015 (in current currency, a fancy word for the actual amount not adjusted to negate currency fluctuations).
For our first EFSS (yes, we’ll get around to the name change to Content Collaboration Platforms soon) market share, we’re pegging the market at $2.8 billion in 2016. Looking back it was $2.0 billion in 2015 and $1.4 billion in 2014.
So, back to those high level market dynamics questions. How much have these markets changed? Well, EFSS didn’t even exist as a market 5 years ago, so the answer there is – a lot!
There are many ways to look at a market to determine how mature or wild it is. The first is growth, where we saw 41% growth in EFSS from 2015 to 2016. A second dynamics indicator is how many places vendors moved up or down in the ranking from year to year – a stat I call “dynamism” (a new entry or an exit rated 2 points). The EFSS market shows a dynamism of 4 in 2015 and 2016. Third is market concentration at the top. In EFSS, the top 3 players have 63% of the market. And finally, I look at the long tail – what % of the market goes to “other”. For EFSS “other” comes in third place, with 15% of the market. What that tells me is that for a new market, EFSS isn’t actually that wild and wooly! And it’s great to see how this market indicates innovation and quite a bit of net new revenue for content services.
As for CSP (the old ECM), it grew 8% from 2015 to 2016. Its dynamism rating is 6 in light of an acquisition (OpenText’s acquisition of EMC’s content assets). Market concentration of the top 3 is 43%. And “other” owns the #1 slot with 29% of the market (consisting of 100+ players world wide). So CSP isn’t growing nearly as fast as EFSS – which is only to be expected. But all the other indicators – the number of small players, dynamism, and concentration – point to a market that still promises to be dynamic for many years to come.
I’ve just scratched the surface of the figures. Our Technology and Service Provider clients can learn more by downloading the pivot table at Market Share: All Software Markets, Worldwide, 2016 . You’ll find splits by geographic regions, vendors, constant currency versions, and more.
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
Predicts 2017: Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical...
View Relevant Webinars
The Mobile Scenario: Taking Mobility to the Next Level
The definition of "mobile" in the post-app era will involve new interactions such as bots and conversations, new devices such as wearables...
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.