SAP Mobile Platform (SMP) 2.3 Vs 3.0 – Comparison by Features

As you know SAP Mobile Platform (SMP) 3.0 went GA few days ago, you might be wondering what are the big changes in the Mobile platform from a technical perspective.  As a continuation of our comparison series, this article will focus on the previous and current versions of SAP Mobility platform, viz. SMP 2.3 and SMP 3.0.

SMP 3.0
SMP 2.3
SMP 3.0 uses Open Architecture where the server is a Lean Java Server(SAP’s version of Tomcat) built using OSGi (Open Source Gateway initiative) framework to effectively develop package, monitor, troubleshoot and debug the server. SMP 2.3 is based on the principle of factorization created using Proprietary Sybase Mobile Technology
SMP 3.0 uses oData model on HTTP REST protocol for all Data exchange SMP 2.3 uses iMO protocol for MBO based approach & oData for oData Proxy applications
SMP 3.0 does not support Data staging in the middleware SMP 2.3 supports Data staging in the CDB server for MBO based application
Multi-backend integration is supported using SMP Integration Gateway (IG). IG is used to convert JDBC, JPA & Web Services to oData. Multi backend integration is supported by MBO design
SMP 3.0 is a Unified Mobility platform for B2B, B2E & B2C application Development. All SAP technologies merged under one roof SMP 2.3 is the MEAP used for B2B application development. Sybase Mobiliser was used for B2C application Development
Development Tools
oData SDK can be used for building native (online & offline) applications SUP (MBO) SDK is used for building native (Online & Offline) applications and oData SDK for Online Applications
Supports BYOT (Bring Your Own Tools, you can use your own preferred set of client development tools ) for developing any kind of Mobile Application (Native/Hybrid) Hybrid Web Container should be used for Hybrid Application Development
Supports Open Standards based Apache Cordova Container for Hybrid Application Development Sybase Hybrid Web Container (HWC) is used for Hybrid Application Development which can be integrated with Cordova libraries
SAP supports Mobile Application Framework For Application UI in SMP 3.0 No support for Mobile Application Framework
SMP 3.0 provides set of plug-ins for Cordova to integrate with SMP and provide enterprise grade features. No SAP plug-ins provided in SMP 2.3
For Agentry Apps, UI extension (adding external control) to integrate GIS, Visual Enterprise for all platform is possible using OpenUI framework For Agentry Apps, UI extension is possible for only Win32 applications using ActiveX
Integrated Logon Manager with Client Hub allows app to share the credentials Integrated Logon Manager with Client Hub is not supported
Admin Console
SMP 3.0 Admin console is light weight, built using HTML5 for ease of use SMP 2.3 Admin console was heavy app built using Adobe Flex and uses Sybase Control Center
No Multi tenant concept in SMP 3.0 Multi tenancy was supported using Domain in SUP 2.3
Supports Usage Analytics, Performance metrics, Monitoring in the form of Graphs. Does not have any graphical representation for metrics
Agentry Support
Agentry applications uses web socket for communication Agentry application uses ANGEL protocol for communication
Only one Agentry application can be deployed in SMP 3.0 SMP 2.3 supports multiple Agentry Application
Supported Devices
SMP 3.0 supports Native OData SDK for Android & iOS platforms (for non-agentry Applications). REST Based Native Apps can be built for Windows 8 and BlackBerry 10. SMP 2.3 supports Android, iOS, Win32, WinCE, WinMobile6, Blackberry

As the SAP Mobile platform architecture changed significantly with 3.0 version, it is not Apples to Apples comparison. The above table is not a comprehensive side by side comparison, it is just a high level comparison for your understanding.

Did we miss anything significant ?
Add your comparisons …

Stay tuned for our next series of articles on SMP 3.0

7 thoughts on “SAP Mobile Platform (SMP) 2.3 Vs 3.0 – Comparison by Features”

  1. Thanks for this simple article. We are SAP/SMP partners and were looking at material which highlight the differences between both the version. This article covers most of relevant points for comparison at high level.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.