Thanks to Penny Crossman and her editor, Greg MacSweeny, for doing some due diligence and subsequent corrections on their article about PhaseCapital's evaluation process in which they chose Streambase. The link is here.
Here is the important paragraph from the revised article:
Last summer, the quant fund began evaluating major complex event processing venders by attending trade shows, checking general market acceptance and investigating research on CEP. "We don't claim we've seen every CEP vendor," Goodell notes. During the fall, the firm drilled down on CEP vendors by meeting with representatives, checking product references (blind and vendor provided), downloading publicly available products, and reading white papers. "Some products appeared to be more flexible than others, and that was a large part of our evaluation process," Goodell notes. "While we wanted to make sure the product would integrate well with our environment and that it was rich enough to allow us the control we needed to implement our algorithms, we also wanted to make sure it was enough of a high-level platform that we did not need to worry about data management issues."
And, the money shot is in the sentence: "We don't claim we've seen every CEP vendor"
This is quite a difference from the assertion of the Streambase press release in which they say:
"PhaseCapital chose StreamBase after a comprehensive evaluation of the leading CEP products. "
Kudos to Penny and Greg for having the integrity to drill down into the original questionable assertions from PhaseCapital and Streambase in their original article.
©2009 Marc Adler - All Rights Reserved.
All opinions here are personal, and have no relation to my employer.