Since I’ve added coverage for many more software packages, I have restructured the main article to reflect the value of each type of data. They now appear in this order:

- Job Advertisements
- Scholarly Articles
- IT Research Firm Reports
- Surveys of Use
- Books
- Blogs
- Discussion Forum Activity
- Programming Popularity Measures
- Sales & Downloads
- Competition Use
- Growth in Capability

Growth in Capability remains last because I only have complete data for R. To save you from having to dig through all 40+ pages of the article, the updated section is below. I’ll be updating several other sections in the coming weeks. If you’re interested, you can follow this blog, or follow me on Twitter as @BobMuenchen.

If you haven’t yet learned R, I recommend my books R for SAS and SPSS Users and R for Stata Users. I do R training as well, but that’s booked up through the end of August, so please plan ahead.

The capability of analytics software has grown significantly over the years. It would be helpful to be able to plot the growth of each software package’s capabilities, but such data are hard to obtain. John Fox (2009) acquired them for R’s main distribution site http://cran.r-project.org/ for each version of R. To simplify ongoing data collection, I kept only the values for the last version of R released each year (usually in November or December), and collected data through the most recent complete year.

These data are displayed in Figure 10. The right-most point is for version 3.2.3, released 12/10/2015. The growth curve follows a rapid parabolic arc (quadratic fit with R-squared=.995).

To put this astonishing growth in perspective, let us compare it to the most dominant commercial package, SAS. In version, 9.3, SAS contained around 1,200 commands that are roughly equivalent to R functions (procs, functions, etc. in Base, Stat, ETS, HP Forecasting, Graph, IML, Macro, OR, and QC). In 2015, R added 1,357 packages, counting only CRAN, or approximately 27,642 functions. During 2015 alone, R added more functions/procs than SAS Institute has written *in its entire history*.

Of course while SAS and R commands solve many of the same problems, they are certainly not perfectly equivalent. Some SAS procedures have many more options to control their output than R functions do, so one SAS procedure may be equivalent to many R functions. On the other hand, R functions can nest inside one another, creating nearly infinite combinations. SAS is now out with version 9.4 and I have not repeated the arduous task of recounting its commands. If SAS Institute would provide the figure, I would include it here. While the comparison is far from perfect, it does provide an interesting perspective on the size and growth rate of R.

As rapid as R’s growth has been, these data represent only the main CRAN repository. R has eight other software repositories, such as Bioconductor, that are not included in Fig. 10. A program run on 4/19/2016 counted 11,531 R packages at all major repositories, 8,239 of which were at CRAN. (I excluded the GitHub repository since it contains duplicates to CRAN that I could not easily remove.) So the growth curve for the software at all repositories would be approximately 40% higher on the y-axis than the one shown in Figure 10.

As with any analysis software, individuals also maintain their own separate collections available on their web sites. However, those are not easily counted.

What’s the total number of R functions? The Rdocumentation site shows the latest counts of both packages and functions on CRAN, Bioconductor and GitHub. They indicate that there is an average of 19.78 functions per package. Given the package count of 11,531, as of 4/19/2016 there were approximately 228,103 total functions in R. In total, R has approximately 190 times as many commands as its main commercial competitor, SAS.

]]>Figure 1. Gartner Magic Quadrant for 2016. What’s missing?

If you compare Figure 1 to last year’s plot (Figure 2), you’ll see a few noteworthy changes, but you’re unlikely to catch the radical shift that has occurred between the two. Both KNIME and RapidMiner have increased their scores slightly in both dimensions. KNIME is now rated as having the greatest vision within the Leaders quadrant. Given how much smaller KNIME Inc. is than IBM and SAS Institute, that’s quite an accomplishment. Dell has joined them in the Leaders quadrant through its acquisition of Statistica. Microsoft increased its completeness of vison, in part by buying Revolution Analytics. Accenture joined the category through its acquisition of i4C Analytics. LavaStorm and Megaputer entered the plot in 2016, though Gartner doesn’t specify why. These are all interesting changes, but they don’t represent the biggest change of all.

The watershed change between these two plots is hinted at by two companies that are missing in the more recent one: Salford Systems and Tibco. The important thing is *why* they’re missing. Gartner excluded them this year, “…due to not satisfying the [new] visual composition framework [VCF] inclusion criteria.” VCF is the term they’re using to describe the workflow (also called streams or flowcharts) style of Graphical User Interface (GUI). To be included in the 2016 plot, companies *must* have offered software that uses the workflow GUI. What Garter is saying is, in essence, *advanced analytics software that does not use the workflow interface is not worth following! *

Figure 2. Gartner Magic Quadrant for 2015.

Though the VCF terminology is new, I’ve long advocated its advantages (see What’s Missing From R). As I described there:

“While menu-driven interfaces such as R Commander, Deducer or SPSS are somewhat easier to learn, the flowchart interface has two important advantages. First, you can often get a grasp of the big picture as you see steps such as separate files merging into one, or several analyses coming out of a particular data set. Second, and more important, you have a precise record of every step in your analysis. This allows you to repeat an analysis simply by changing the data inputs. Instead, menu-driven interfaces require that you switch to the programs that they create in the background if you need to automatically re-run many previous steps. That’s fine if you’re a programmer, but if you were a good programmer, you probably would not have been using that type of interface in the first place!”

As a programming-oriented consultant who works with many GUI-oriented clients, I also appreciate the blend of capabilities that workflow GUIs provide. My clients can set up the level of analysis they’re comfortable with, and if I need to add some custom programming, I can do so in R or Python, blending my code right into their workflow. We can collaborate, each using his or her preferred approach. If my code is widely applicable, I can put it into distribution as a node icon that anyone can drag into their workflow diagram.

The Gartner report offers a more detailed list of workflow features. They state that such interfaces should support:

- Interactive design of workflows from data sources to visualization, modeling and deployment using dragging and dropping of building blocks on a visual pallet
- Ability to parameterize the building blocks
- Ability to save workflows into files and libraries for later reuse
- Creation of new building blocks by composing sets of building blocks
- Creation of new building blocks by allowing a scripting language (R, JavaScript, Python and others) to describe the functionality of the input/output behavior

I would add the ability to color-code and label sections of the workflow diagram. That, combined with the creation of metanodes or supernodes (creating one new building block from a set of others) help keep a complex workflow readable.

**Implications**

If Gartner’s shift in perspective resulted in them dropping only two companies from their reports, does this shift really amount to much of a change? Hasn’t it already been well noted and dealt with? No, the plot is done at the company level. If it were done at the product level, many popular packages such as SAS (with its default Display Manager System interface) and SPSS Statistics would be excluded.

The fields of statistics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence have been combined psychologically by their inclusion into broader concepts such as advanced analytics or data science. But the separation of those fields is still quite apparent in the software tools themselves. Tools that have their historical roots in machine learning and artificial intelligence are far more likely to have implemented workflow GUIs. However, while they have a more useful GUI, they tend to still lack a full array of common statistical methods. For example, KNIME and RapidMiner can only handle very simple analysis of variance problems. When such companies turn their attention to this deficit, the more statistically oriented companies will face much stiffer completion. Recent versions of KNIME have already made progress on this front.

SPSS Modeler can access the full array of SPSS Statistics routines through its dialog boxes, but the two products lack full integration. Most users of SPSS Statistics are unaware that IBM offers control of their software through a better interface. IBM could integrate the Modeler interface into SPSS Statistics so that all its users would see that interface when they start the software. Making their standard menu choices could begin building a workflow diagram. SPSS Modeler could still be sold as a separate package, one that added features to SPSS Statistics’ workflow interface.

A company that is on the cutting edge of GUI design is SAS Institute. Their SAS Studio is, to the best of my knowledge, unique in its ability to offer four major ways of working. Its program editor lets you type code from memory using features far advanced from their aging Display Manager System. It also offers a “snippets” feature that lets you call up code templates for common tasks and edit them before execution. That still requires some programming knowledge, but users can depend less on their memory. The software also has a menu & dialog approach like SPSS Statistics, and it even has a workflow interface. Kudos to SAS Institute for providing so much flexibility! When students download the SAS University Edition directly from SAS Institute, this is the only interface they see.

SAS Studio currently supports a small, but very useful, percent of SAS’ overall capability. That needs to be expanded to provide as close to 100% coverage as possible. If the company can eventually phase out their many other GUIs (Enterprise Guide, Enterprise Miner, SAS/Assist, Display Manager System, SAS/IML Studio, etc.), merging that capability into SAS Studio, they might finally earn a reputation for ease of use that they have lacked.

In conclusion, the workflow GUI has already become a major type of interface for advanced analytics. My hat is off to the Gartner Group for taking a stand on encouraging its use. In the coming years, we can expect to see the machine learning/AI software adding statistical features, and the statistically oriented companies continuing to add more to their workflow capabilities until the two groups meet in the middle. The companies that get there first will have a significant strategic advantage.

**Acknowledgements**

Thanks to Jon Peck for suggestions that improved this post.

]]>**Discussion Forum Activity**

Another way to measure software popularity is to see how many people are helping one another use each package or language. While such data is readily available, it too has its problems. Menu-driven software like SPSS or workflow-driven software such as KNIME are quite easy to use and tend to generate fewer questions. Software controlled by programming requires the memorization of many commands and requiring more support. Even within languages, some are harder to use than others, generating more questions (see Why R is Hard to Learn).

Another problem with this type of data is that there are many places to ask questions and each has its own focus. Some are interested in a classical statistics perspective while others have a broad view of software as general-purpose programming languages. In recent years, companies have set up support sites within their main corporate web site, further splintering the places you can go to get help. Usage data for such sites is not readily available.

Another problem is that it’s not as easy to use logic to focus in on specific types of questions as it was with the data from job advertisements and scholarly articles discussed earlier. It’s also not easy to get the data across time to allow us to study trends. Finally, the things such sites measure include: software group members (a.k.a. followers), individual topics (a.k.a. questions or threads), and total comments across all topics (a.k.a. total posts). This makes combining counts across sites problematic.

Two of the biggest sites used to discuss software are LinkedIn and Quora. They both display the number of people who follow each software topic, so combining their figures makes sense. However, since the sites lack any focus on analytics, I have not collected their data on general purpose languages like Java, MATLAB, Python or variants of C. The results of data collected on 10/17/2015 are shown here:

We see that R is the dominant software and that moving down through SAS, SPSS, and Stata results in a loss of roughly half the number of people in each step. Lavastorm follows Stata, but I find it odd that there was absolutely zero discussion of Lavastorm on Quora. The last bar that you can even see on this plot is the 62 people who follow Minitab. All the ones below that have tiny audiences of fewer than 10.

Next let’s examine two sites that focus only on statistical questions: Talk Stats and Cross Validated. They both report the number of questions (a.k.a. threads) for a given piece of software, allowing me to total their counts:

We see that R has a 4-to-1 lead over the next most popular package, SPSS. Stata comes in at 3rd place, followed by SAS. The fact that SAS is in fourth place here may be due to the fact that it is strong in data management and report writing, which are not the types of questions that these two sites focus on. Although MATLAB and Python are general purpose languages, I include them here because the questions on this site are within the realm of analytics. Note that I collected data on as many packages as were shown in the previous graph, but those not shown have a count of zero. Julia appears to have a count of zero due to the scale of the graph, but it actually had 5 questions on Cross Validated.

If you found this interesting, you can read about the results of other surveys and several other ways to measure software popularity here.

Is your organization still learning R? I’d be happy to stop by and help. I also have a workshop, *R for SAS, SPSS and Stata Users,* on DataCamp.com. If you found this post useful, I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

**Surveys of Use**

One way to estimate the relative popularity of data analysis software is though a survey. Rexer Analytics conducts such a survey every other year, asking a wide range of questions regarding data science (previously referred to as data mining by the survey itself.) Figure 6a shows the tools that the 1,220 respondents reported using in 2015.

We see that R has a more than 2-to-1 lead over the next most popular packages, SPSS Statistics and SAS. Microsoft’s Excel Data Mining software is slightly less popular, but note that it is rarely used as the primary tool. Tableau comes next, also rarely used as the primary tool. That’s to be expected as Tableau is principally a visualization tool with minimal capabilities for advanced analytics.

The next batch of software appears at first to be all in the 15% to 20% range, but KNIME and RapidMiner are listed both in their free versions and, much further down, in their commercial versions. These data come from a “check all that apply” type of question, so if we add the two amounts, we may be over counting. However, the survey also asked, “What *one* (my emphasis) data mining / analytic software package did you use most frequently in the past year?” Using these data, I combined the free and commercial versions and plotted the top 10 packages again in figure 6b. Since other software combinations are likely, e.g. SAS and Enterprise Miner; SPSS Statistics and SPSS Modeler; etc. I combined a few others as well.

In this view we see R even more dominant, with over a 3-to-1 advantage compared to the software from IBM SPSS and SAS Institute. However, the overall ranking of the top three didn’t change. KNIME however rises from 9th place to 4th. RapidMiner rises as well, from 10th place to 6th. KNIME has roughly a 2-to-1 lead over RapidMiner, even though these two packages have similar capabilities and both use a workflow user interface. This may be due to RapidMiner’s move to a more commercially oriented licensing approach. For free, you can still get an older version of RapidMiner or a version of the latest release that is quite limited in the types of data files it can read. Even the academic license for RapidMiner is constrained by the fact that the company views “funded activity” (e.g. research done on government grants) the same as commercial work. The KNIME license is much more generous as the company makes its money from add-ons that increase productivity, collaboration and performance, rather than limiting analytic features or access to popular data formats.

If you found this interesting, you can read about the results of other surveys and several other ways to measure software popularity here.

Is your organization still learning R? I’d be happy to stop by and help. I also have a workshop, *R for SAS, SPSS and Stata Users,* on DataCamp.com. If you found this post useful, I invite you to follow me on Twitter.

**Books**

The number of books published on each software package or language reflects its relative popularity. Amazon.com offers an advanced search method which works well for all the software except R and the general-purpose languages such as Java, C, and MATLAB. I did not find a way to easily search for books on analytics that used such general purpose languages, so I’ve excluded them in this section.

The Amazon.com advanced search configuration that I used was (using SAS as an example):

Title: SAS -excerpt -chapter -changes -articles Subject: Computers & Technology Condition: New Format: All formats Publication Date: After January, 2000

The “title” parameter allowed me to focus the search on books that included the software names in their titles. Other books may use a particular software in their examples, but they’re impossible to search for easily. SAS has many manuals for sale as individual chapters or excerpts. They contain “chapter” or “excerpt” in their title so I excluded them using the minus sign, e.g. “-excerpt”. SAS also has short “changes and enhancements” booklets that the developers of other packages release only in the form of flyers and/or web pages, so I excluded “changes” as well. Some software listed brief “articles” which I also excluded. I did the search on June 1, 2015, and I excluded excerpts, chapters, changes, and articles from all searches.

“R” is a difficult term to search for since it’s used in book titles to indicate Registered Trademark as in “SAS(R)”. Therefore I verified all the R books manually.

The results are shown in Table 1, where it’s clear that a very small number of analytics software packages dominate the world of book publishing. SAS has a huge lead with 576 titles, followed by SPSS with 339 and R with 240. SAS and SPSS both have many versions of the same book or manual still for sale, so their numbers are both inflated as a result. JMP and Hadoop both had fewer than half of R’s count and then Minitab and Enterprise Miner had fewer then half again as many. Although I obtained counts on all 27 of the domain-specific (i.e. not general-purpose) analytics software packages or languages shown in Figure 2a, I cut the table off at software that had 8 or fewer books to save space.

Software Number of BooksSAS 576 SPSS Statistics 339 R 240 [Corrected from: 172] JMP 97 Hadoop 89 Stata 62 Minitab 33 Enterprise Miner 32

Table 1. The number of books whose titles contain the name of each software package.

[Correction: Thanks to encouragement from Bernhard Lehnert (see comments below) the count for R has been corrected from 172 to the more accurate 240.]

]]>…The results of a similar poll done by the KDnuggets.com web site in May of 2015 are shown in Figure 6b. This one shows R in first place with 46.9% of users reporting having used it for a real project. RapidMiner, SQL, and Python follow quite a bit lower with around 30% of users. Then at around 20% are Excel, KNIME and HADOOP. It’s interesting to see what has happened to two very similar tools, RapidMiner and KNIME. Both used to be free and open source. RapidMiner then adopted a commercial model, with an older version still free. KNIME kept its desktop version free and, likely as a result, its use has more than tripled over the last three years. SAS Enterprise Miner uses a very similar workflow interface, and its reported use, while low, has almost doubled over the last three years. Figure 6b only shows those packages that have at least 5% market share. KDnuggets’ original graph and detailed analysis are here.

I invite you to follow me here or at http://twitter.com/BobMuenchen. If you’re interested in learning R, DataCamp.com offers my 16-hour interactive workshop, R for SAS, SPSS and Stata Users for $25. That’s a monthly fee, but it definitely won’t take you a month to take it! For students & academics, it’s $9. I also do R training on-site.

]]>In my ongoing quest to *analyze the world of analytics*, I’ve updated the Growth in Capability section of The Popularity of Data Analysis Software. To save you the trouble of foraging through that tome, I’ve pasted it below.

**Growth in Capability**

The capability of analytics software has grown significantly over the years. It would be helpful to be able to plot the growth of each software package’s capabilities, but such data are hard to obtain. John Fox (2009) acquired them for R’s main distribution site http://cran.r-project.org/, and I collected the data for later versions following his method.

Figure 9 shows the number of R packages on CRAN for the last version released in each year. The growth curve follows a rapid parabolic arc (quadratic fit with R-squared=.995). The right-most point is for version 3.1.2, the last version released in late 2014.

To put this astonishing growth in perspective, let us compare it to the most dominant commercial package, SAS. In version, 9.3, SAS contained around 1,200 commands that are roughly equivalent to R functions (procs, functions etc. in Base, Stat, ETS, HP Forecasting, Graph, IML, Macro, OR, QC). In 2014, R added 1,357 packages, counting only CRAN, or approximately 27,642 functions. During 2014 alone, R added more functions/procs than SAS Institute has written in its entire history.

Of course SAS and R commands solve many of the same problems, they are certainly not perfectly equivalent. Some SAS procedures have many more options to control their output than R functions do, so one SAS procedure may be equivalent to many R functions. On the other hand, R functions can nest inside one another, creating nearly infinite combinations. SAS is now out with version 9.4 and I have not repeated the arduous task of recounting its commands. If SAS Institute would provide the figure, I would include it here. While the comparison is far from perfect, it does provide an interesting perspective on the size and growth rate of R.

As rapid as R’s growth has been, these data represent only the main CRAN repository. R has eight other software repositories, such as Bioconductor, that are not included in

Figure 9. A program run on 5/22/2015 counted 8,954 R packages at all major repositories, 6,663 of which were at CRAN. (I excluded the GitHub repository since it contains duplicates to CRAN that I could not easily remove.) So the growth curve for the software at all repositories would be approximately 34.4% higher on the y-axis than the one shown in Figure 9. Therefore, the estimated total growth in R *functions* for 2014 was 28,260 * 1.344 or 37981.

As with any analysis software, individuals also maintain their own separate collections typically available on their web sites. However, those are not easily counted.

What’s the total number of R functions? The Rdocumentation site shows the latest counts of both packages and functions on CRAN, Bioconductor and GitHub. They indicate that there is an average of 20.37 functions per package. Since a program run on 5/22/2015 counted 8,954 R packages at all major repositories except GitHub, on that date there were approximately 182,393 total functions in R. In total, R has *over 150 times* as many commands as SAS.

I invite you to follow me here or at http://twitter.com/BobMuenchen. If you’re interested in learning R, DataCamp.com offers my 16-hour interactive workshop, R for SAS, SPSS and Stata Users for $25. That’s a monthly fee, but it definitely won’t take you a month to take it! For students & academics, it’s $9. I also do R training on-site.

]]>Analytics tools take significant effort to master, so once learned people tend to stick with them for much of their careers. This makes the tools used in academia of particular interest in the study of future trends of market share. I’ve been tracking The Popularity of Data Analysis Software regularly since 2010, and thanks to an astute reader, I now have a greatly improved estimate of Stata’s academic growth. Peter Hedström, Director of the Institute for Analytical Sociology at Linköping University, wrote to me convinced that I was underestimating Stata’s role by a wide margin, and he was right.

Two things make Stata’s popularity difficult to guage: 1) Stata means “been” in Italian, and 2) it’s a common name for the authors of scholarly papers and those they cite. Peter came up with the simple, but very effective, idea of adding Statacorp’s headquarter, College Station, Texas, to the search. That helped us find far more Stata articles while blocking the irrelevant ones. Here’s the search string we came up with:

("Stata" "College Station") OR "StataCorp" OR "Stata Corp" OR "Stata Journal" OR "Stata Press" OR "Stata command" OR "Stata module"

The blank between Stata and College Station is an implied logical “and”. This string found 20% more articles than my previous one. This success motivated me to try and improve some of my other search strings. R and SAS are both difficult to search for due to how often those letters stand for other things. I was able to improve my R search string by 15% using this:

"r-project.org" OR "R development core team" OR "lme4" OR "bioconductor" OR "RColorBrewer" OR "the R software" OR "the R project" OR "ggplot2" OR "Hmisc" OR "rcpp" OR "plyr" OR "knitr" OR "RODBC" OR "stringr" OR "mass package"

Despite hours of effort, I was unable to improve on the simple SAS search string of “SAS Institute.” Google Scholar’s logic seems to fall apart since “SAS Institute” OR “SAS procedure” finds fewer articles! If anyone can figure that out, please let me know in the comments section below. As usual, the steps I use to document all searches are detailed here.

The improved search strings have affected all the graphs in the Scholarly Articles section of The Popularity of Data Analysis Software. At the request of numerous readers, I’ve also added a log-scale plot there which shows the six most popular classic statistics packages:

If you’re interested in learning R, DataCamp.com offers my 16-hour interactive workshop,

R for SAS, SPSS and Stata Users for $25. That’s a monthly fee, but it definitely won’t take you a month to take it! For students & academics, it’s $9. I also do training on-site but I’m often booked about 8 weeks out.

I invite you to follow me on this blog and on Twitter.

]]>It would be useful to have growth trend graphs for each of the analytics packages I track, but collecting such data is too time consuming since it must be re-collected every year (since search algorithms change). What I’ve done instead is collect data only for the past two complete years, 2013 and 2014. Figure 2e shows the percent change from 2013 to 2014, with the “hot” packages whose use is growing shown in red. Those whose use is declining or “cooling” are shown in blue. Since the number of articles tends to be in the thousands or tens of thousands, I have removed any software that had fewer than 100 articles in 2013. Going from one to five articles may represent 500% growth, but it’s not of much interest.

The three fastest growing packages are all free and open source: Python, R and KNIME. All three saw more than 25% growth. Note that the Python figures are strictly for analytics use as defined here. At the other end of the scale are SPSS and SAS, both of which declined in use by around 25%. Recall that Fig. 2a shows that despite recent years of decline, SPSS is still extremely dominant for scholarly use.

Three of the packages whose use is growing implement the powerful and easy-to-use workflow or flowchart user interface: KNIME, RapidMiner and SPSS Modeler. As useful as that approach is, it’s not sufficient for success as we see with SAS Enterprise Miner, whose use declined nearly 15%.

It will be particularly interesting to see what the future holds for KNIME and RapidMiner. The companies were two of only four chosen by the Gartner Group as having both a complete vision of the future and the ability to execute that vision (Fig. 7a). Until recently, both were free and open source. RapidMiner then started charging for its current version, leaving its older version as the only free one. Recent offers to make it free for academic use don’t include use on projects with grant funding, so I expect KNIME’s higher rate of growth to remain faster than RapidMiner’s. However, in absolute terms, scholarly use of RapidMiner is currently almost twice that of KNIME, as shown in Fig. 2b.

]]>So what happened? We’re looking back across many years, so while it’s possible that SPSS suddenly became much more popular in 2014, that could not account for lifting the whole trend line. It’s possible Google Scholar improved its algorithm to find articles that existed previously. It’s also possible that new journal archives have opened themselves up to being indexed by Google. Why would it affect SPSS more than SAS or R? SPSS is menu-driven so it’s easy to install with its menus and dialog boxes translated into many languages. Since SAS and R are much more frequently used via their English-based languages, they may not be as popular in non-English speaking countries. Therefore, one might see a disproportionate impact on SPSS by new non-English archives becoming available. If you have an alternate hypothesis, please leave it in the comments below.

The remainder of this post is the complete updated section on this topic from The Popularity of Data Analysis Software:

**Scholarly Articles**

The more popular a software package is, the more likely it will appear in scholarly publications as a topic or as a tool of analysis. The software that is used in scholarly articles is what the next generation of analysts will graduate knowing, so it’s a leading indicator of where things are headed. Google Scholar offers a way to measure such activity. However, no search of this magnitude is perfect and will include some irrelevant articles and reject some relevant ones. The details of the search terms I used are complex enough to move to a companion article, How to Search For Analytics Articles. Since Google regularly improves its search algorithm, each year I re-collect the data for all years.

Figure 2a shows the number of articles found for each software package for the most recent complete year, 2014. SPSS is by far the most dominant package, likely due to its balance between power and ease-of-use. SAS has around half as many, followed by MATLAB and R. The software from Java through Statgraphics show a slow decline in usage from highest to lowest. Note that the general purpose software C, C++, C#, MATLAB, Java and Python are included only when found in combination with analytics terms, so view those as much rougher counts than the rest.

From RapidMiner on down, the counts appear to be zero. That’s not the case, the counts are just very low compared to the more popular packages, used in tens of thousands articles. Figure 2b shows the software only for those packages that have fewer than 825 articles (i.e. the bottom part of Fig. 2a), so we can see how they compare. RapidMiner, KNIME, SPSS Modeler and SAS Enterprise Miner are packages that all use the powerful and easy-to-use workflow interface, but their use has not yet caught on among scholars. BMDP is one of the oldest packages in existence. Its use has been declining for many years, but it’s still hanging in there. The software in the bottom half of this figure contain the newcomers, with the notable exception of Megaputer, whose Polyanalyst software has been around for many years now.

I’m particularly interested in the long-term trends of the classic statistics packages. So in Figure 2c I’ve plotted the same scholarly-use data for 1995 through 2014, the last complete year of data when this graph was made. As in Figure 2a, SPSS has a clear lead, but now you can see that its dominance peaked in 2008 and its use is in sharp decline. SAS never came close to SPSS’ level of dominance, and it also peaked around 2008. Note that the decline in the number of articles that used SPSS or SAS is not balanced by the increase in the other software shown. This is likely due to the fact that those two leaders faced increasing competition from many more software packages than can be shown in this type of graph (such as those shown in Figure 2a).

Since SAS and SPSS dominate the vertical space in Figure 2c by such a wide margin, I removed those two packages and added the next two most popular statistics packages, Systat and JMP, with the result shown in Figure 2d. Freeing up so much space in the plot now allows us to see that the use of R is experiencing very rapid growth and is pulling away from the pack, solidifying its position in third place. If the current trends continue, the use of R may pass that of SPSS and SAS by the end of 2016. Note that current trends have shifted before as discussed here.

Stata has moved into fourth place, crossing above Statistica in 2014. The growth in the use of Stata is more rapid than all the classic statistics packages except for R. The use of Statistica, Minitab, Systat and JMP are next in popularity, respectively, with their growth roughly parallel to one another. [Note that in the plots from previous years, Statistica was displayed as a flat line at the very bottom of the graph. That turned out to be a search-related artifact. Many academics who use Statistica don’t mention the package by software name but rather say something like, “we used the statistics package by Statsoft.”]

I’ll announce future update on Twitter, where you can follow me as @BobMuenchen.

]]>