Detailed comparison
Ellunium FICO Custom Code Assessment vs. SAP‑standard tools
With ATC, SYCM, and the Simplification Item Check, SAP provides powerful standard tools for technical code analysis. Our FICO Custom Code Assessment builds on their results and adds the business assessment those tools can't provide. Here is the comparison in detail.
vs. ATC (ABAP Test Cockpit)
| Ellunium FICO Assessment | ATC | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Business assessment of custom code in the FICO context | Static code analysis against the S/4HANA ruleset |
| Output | Structured report: which findings are business-critical and which can be safely ignored | List of 833+ findings with line numbers and SAP Note references |
| Depth of analysis | Semantic — checks whether the code actually matters for the business (e.g. year-end close report) | Syntactic — checks whether code is technically compatible (e.g. SELECT on BSEG) |
| FICO context | Maps every finding to a FICO process (General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Fixed Assets, CO-PA, etc.) | None — can't tell a dunning run from a throwaway test program |
| Usage analysis | Factors in whether the code is actively used in day-to-day operations | Not included — ATC analyzes code, not whether it's used |
| Recommended action | “This BSEG report is your monthly close → migrate, ~3 PD” or “Unused since 2019 → retire” | “Table BSEG no longer exists, see SAP Note 2340450” |
| S/4 standard match | e.g. “This custom open-items report can be replaced by standard Fiori app F0720A” | Flags incompatibility, but doesn't say whether S/4 covers the function natively |
| Project planning | Prioritized roadmap: year-end close first, then payments, then reporting | None — a flat findings list with no sequence or dependencies |
vs. SYCM (Custom Code Migration Worklist)
| Ellunium FICO Assessment | SYCM | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Business-prioritized roadmap with a concrete decision per object | Migration-relevant worklist with effort estimates |
| Output | Report with a recommendation per object: migrate, replace with S/4 standard, or retire | Table of 312 objects with finding counts, call counts, and estimated PD |
| Depth of analysis | Qualitative — business relevance, process dependencies, risk assessment | Quantitative — lines of code, number of findings, call frequency |
| FICO context | FICO-specialized — understands the weight of year-end close, payment runs, regulatory reporting, and depreciation runs | None — an FI year-end close report and an MM test program are treated the same |
| Usage analysis | Qualitative — “12 calls = year-end close + quarter-ends → business-critical” vs. “48 calls = developer test → irrelevant” | Quantitative — “12 calls in 12 months” with no interpretation |
| Recommended action | Per object: migrate / replace / retire — plus ~30 PD saved by retiring instead of migrating | None — reports “145 PD total effort” but doesn't tell you what to do |
| S/4 standard match | e.g. “Z_FI_OFFENE_POSTEN can be replaced by standard Fiori app F0720A” | Doesn't check whether S/4 already covers the custom functionality natively |
| Project planning | Clear sequence by business criticality, with dependencies between objects | No sequencing — you can only sort by effort or usage |
vs. Simplification Item Check / SAP Readiness Check
| Ellunium FICO Assessment | Simplification Item Check | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Assesses the concrete impact of those changes on the customer's FICO processes | Identifies which S/4HANA system changes affect the customer's system |
| Output | Report showing which of those 67 items hit operations hardest — and in what order to address them | List of 142 relevant simplification items, 67 requiring action |
| Depth of analysis | FICO-focused — goes deep in FI/CO, where the real complexity sits | System-wide — treats every module the same (FI, CO, MM, SD, PP, HR…) |
| FICO context | Specific — “Your three valuation areas need to be mapped to ledgers, and your custom asset history sheet is affected” | Generic — “New Asset Accounting is relevant, action required” |
| Usage analysis | Links simplification items to the affected custom-code objects and their actual usage | None — the check is blind to custom code and how it's used |
| Recommended action | Concrete — “SI-1402 affects your asset history sheet report, ~8 PD, critical for year-end close” | Generic — “Action required” without a concrete next step |
| S/4 standard match | Spells out which custom code is made obsolete by the changes and can be replaced by standard | Partial — shows what's changing, but not which custom code becomes obsolete as a result |
| Project planning | Roadmap with dependencies, e.g. “Business Partner migration (SI-1356) must be finished before payment-processing changes” | No sequencing or dependencies between items |
Ready for a business-level assessment of your FICO custom code?
A short call is enough to clarify scope and next steps — no commitment.