Simulation modeling software applications are the essentialities in the modern business world, as they assist in analyzing and constructing of the prototypes and models of the real situations (Harrison, Lin, Carroll, & Carley, 2007). Simio and AnyLogic are two simulation modeling software applications, which serve a similar aim since they tend to provide sufficient modeling of particular situations, scenarios, and cases. The primary goal of this essay is to determine differences and similarities between Simio and AnyLogic while analyzing and comparing costs, features, and training requirements. In the end, the conclusions are drawn.
Simio and AnyLogic are simulation modeling applications, which have some differences and similarities. Nonetheless, the maintenance costs vary depending on the product features and the packages. In this instance, Simio is approximate $5,000 for the installation (Capterra: Simio, 2015). In turn, AnyLogic costs around $6,200 for one time per user (Capterra: AnyLogic, 2015). It is apparent that the installation and maintenance of AnyLogic are more expensive. However, whether AnyLogic established relevant price would be revealed while comparing the features and training requirements with Simio. Nonetheless, it is evident that Simio is leading in this aspect since the prices for installation remain lower.
Features are another aspect of comparison. AnyLogic covers a wide variety of features. One of them is the ability to develop and simulate the mixed model since it is one of the essentialities for sufficient modeling (Way, 2015). Additionally, it provides different kinds of modeling techniques and simulations, such as 1D and 3D simulations, dynamic, graphical, and continuous modeling (Capterra: AnyLogic, 2015). It is apparent that these features help determine and maintain sufficient modeling of the processes. In turn, Simio has similar characteristics, such as design analysis and 1D and 3D simulations (Capterra: Simio, 2015). It is apparent that two software applications have some similarities in this aspect, as they provide similar features to the users. Nevertheless, in this instance, Simio price to quality ratio contributes to its leading position.
As for the training requirements, it is evident that the complexity of both of the software application requires certain training before starting its active usage. In this instance, both of the companies provide regular support to the services and necessary training in the form of documentation, seminars, and personal classes (Capterra: Simio, 2015). Nonetheless, Simio found a suitable solution to reduce the time which is spent on the training. Simio continuously establishes innovations and the development of new features. For example, Simio released Simio Express to provide the users with the software, which has easy to use interface and combines all the required elements, which a necessary for the sufficient modeling of the processes (“Simio announces release,” 2011). It is evident that, in this case, using Simio is beneficial as the simplicity of the Simio Express allows simulating 1D and 2D models without any particular training.
In conclusion, the analysis of costs, features, and training requirements of Simio and AnyLogic revealed that Simio is beneficial in usage. It is evident that Simio provides a user with similar features for the lower price. Additionally, it gives a chance to utilize Simio Express, as it has a less complicated interface. It is apparent that Simio can be considered as one of the leaders on the model simulation software applications since it combines all the necessary and beneficial aspects in one instrument.
References
Capterra: AnyLogic. (2015).Web.
Capterra: Simio. (2015). Web.
Harrison, R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G., & Carley, K. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229-1245.
Simio announces release of Simio Express. (2011). Assembly Automation, 31(4), 42-44.
Way, P. (2015). Development of simulation model mixed system in the AnyLogic software. Automation and Control in Technical Systems, 3, 104.