Skip to main content
D
DanMarotta12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
March 25, 2011
Question

Mathcad vs. Excel Prizefight

  • March 25, 2011
  • 6 replies
  • 38996 views

If we put Mathcad and Excel in a boxing ring, toe-to-toe, who would come out victorious? What can you do in one, and not in the other? What can you do better in one, and not the other? Why do you like one over the other?

boxing gloves.png

Photo credit: Generationbass.com

Ready? Let's get it on!! [ding ding]

6 replies

M
MikeArmstrong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 25, 2011

Dan,

I can't believe you have said that......

It would be like the Maywheather vs Hatton fight.

Mike

M
MikeArmstrong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 25, 2011

On a more serious note I would have to say the Microsoft product really EXCEL'S (Sorry about that, couldn't resist) in producing tables which are ascetically pleasing.

Mathcad ability to handle units is it's main attribute in my opinion. The fact I can embed Excel tables into Mathcad, Mathcad win's hands down.

Mike

F
Fred_Kohlhepp23-Emerald I
23-Emerald I
April 4, 2011

DanMarotta wrote:

If we put Mathcad and Excel in a boxing ring, toe-to-toe, who would come out victorious? What can you do in one, and not in the other? What can you do better in one, and not the other? Why do you like one over the other?


A very smart, very technically capable engineer (who excercized, wrote, and modified some highly sophisticated computer codes on a daioy basis) has stated that if he had to he could do everything using EXCEL.

That said, other programs make things a lot easier to understand and follow and error check.

I too like and use the unit-checking and handling of Mathcad.

The right tool for the right job!

M
MikeArmstrong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 5, 2011

A very smart, very technically capable engineer (who excercized, wrote, and modified some highly sophisticated computer codes on a daioy basis) has stated that if he had to he could do everything using EXCEL.

That is correct, but why use Excel when you don't have too?

Mike

F
Fred_Kohlhepp23-Emerald I
23-Emerald I
April 5, 2011

Mike Armstrong wrote:

That is correct, but why use Excel when you don't have too?

Mike

You shouldn't.

My point is that EXCEL is an extremely powerful program. It has the advantage (being a Microsoft program) of being well-connected to the computer operatinng system.

While Mathcad is powerful, versatile and (fairly) easy to learn it's missing some things. Multiple sheets, the ability to split the window, the ability to reference a single answer from another sheet,

the list goes on . , ,

I'm nearly the only user of Mathcad at work. If I post a mathcad sheet my boss can't read it; I have to print it or copy it to Word as rtf so he can view it. (Since it's standard math notation (mostly) he can understand it once he can read it. But a live, working Mathcad File? Now, an EXCEL file; that's something we ALL understand!

Everybody reading this forum likes and uses Mathcad. But how many don't have EXCEL on their computers too? And use it?

T
Tezza20101-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 28, 2011

My simple view is "know your products". This applies to both MathCad and Excel.

Try the simple statement:

if(0.1+0.1+0.1=0.3,"True","False")

in both Mathcad and Excel. Use the correct syntax in each.

The expression style is available in each software and is readily visible and auditable in each.

Each product therefore does have its uses and its limitations. You really just need to know in detail sometimes what they are.

Rather use Mathcad than Excel for ease of auditing and arithmatic power.

Mathcad is let down a little in headers/footers and page setup compared to formatting abilities on a spreadsheet.

Cheers.

M
MikeArmstrong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 28, 2011
Try the simple statement:

if(0.1+0.1+0.1=0.3,"True","False")

Yes, but you wouldn't usually construct it this way in Mathcad. You would change the numerical values to pre-defined variables.

Rather use Mathcad than Excel for ease of auditing and arithmatic power.

Mathcad is let down a little in headers/footers and page setup compared to formatting abilities on a spreadsheet.

Mathcad is limited compared to the formatting capability of Word and Excel and that's why Embedded Excel components are being implemented into Prime 2.0.

Mike

T
Tezza20101-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 29, 2011

Enclosed is a little file: Mathcad vs Excel prizefight.

Reply to Mike Armstrong: It uses all defined variables not numbers this time.

Reply to Richard Jackson: It is a trivial problem you could do it in your head. A reviewer of PDF would.

I repeat it is wise to know your products well? A reviewer may not even if it is in PDF or MathCad.

if(0.1+0.1+0.1=0.3,"True","False").

Try it in MathCad and Excel with variables.

Enclosed file does it with both an Excel component and Mathcad using variables in the same MathCad worksheet.

One of them gets it wrong even if you could get it right in your head. It reads right. It looks right. It is auditable. That is a possible danger.

But I repeat - you need to know your products. The reason is not a bug. Might be very hard to spot buried in a complex problem... and I provide a serious real life example for you.

I believe the ARIAN space rocket program costing several billion dollars once lasted a few seconds in flight and you may like to research why?

I again state I do prefer Mathcad. And we can learn from the above trivial example as Mathcad users. Version used is 14 M020.

Cheers

Tezza.

M
MikeArmstrong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 29, 2011

if(0.1+0.1+0.1=0.3,"True","False").

Try it in MathCad and Excel with variables.

Enclosed file does it with both an Excel component and Mathcad using variables in the same MathCad worksheet.

One of them gets it wrong even if you could get it right in your head. It reads right. It looks right. It is auditable. That is a possible danger.

But I repeat - you need to know your products.

EXACTLY. For some reason Mathcad is not calculating 0.1+0.1+0.1 as exactly 0.3, but pretty close. I'm not sure if this is a bug.

I believe the ARIAN space rocket program costing several billion dollars once lasted a few seconds in flight and you may like to research why?

I haven't got the time to look this up, but I'm sure it's been covered before.

Have a look at the attached sheet. Both true.

Mike

A
AlanStevens19-Tanzanite
19-Tanzanite
April 29, 2011

Mike Armstrong wrote:

For some reason Mathcad is not calculating 0.1+0.1+0.1 as exactly 0.3, but pretty close. I'm not sure if this is a bug.

No, it's not a bug. Internally, Mathcad represents numbers in binary, with limited precision. The values used here don't have an exact binary representation to the level of precision used by Mathcad, so it's not entirely surprising that it doesn't think there is an exact match (in fact, if you subtract the answer from the sum and increase the display tolerance, you see that the diffference is around 5.55.10^-17 in M15). If you do the comparison in Mathcad 11, which held numbers to a lower precision than M14/15, you (fortuitously) get an exact match (ie the if test comes up True). Replace the numbers by 0.125 and 0.375 (which have an exact binary representation) as appropriate and M14/15 give True.

This highlights the (well-known?) fact that one should never do exact comparison tests when using Reals. Compare absolute value of difference against an acceptable tolerance.

Alan

J
JohnBDoyle1-Visitor
1-Visitor
July 29, 2011

I run a website called www.ExcelCalcs.com where we help people make calculations using Excel. We have a software addin called XLC which produces equations automatically from cell formulas. For most people this is the main advantage of Mathcad. We also use templates to help people manage units and create professional engineering calculation sheets. It has become a thriving community where engineers share calculations in a repository and discuss issues in the forum. I think it is fair to say that I am a little biased but I genuinely believe that Excel with our XLC addin leaves Mathcad for dead.

D
DanMarotta12-AmethystAuthor
12-Amethyst
July 29, 2011

John, thanks for sharing your view and opinion. Welcome to PlanetPTC.

-Dan

Community Manager

P
PhilipOakley1-Visitor
1-Visitor
August 2, 2011

I think that Hammers are better at inserting screws than Screwdrivers are at inserting nails.

However the whole thesis of the thread asks the wrong question: It presupposes a fixed arena with only two competitors, rather than the reality of an open market with many tool choices [Just look how big HomeDepot / B&Q warehouses are!]

There are many competitors who are doing 'roaring' trade, whether that is C, C++ or Matlab, or the Mathematica, Haskell or F# arena; each picking up folk who find their needs and the tool paradigm are broadly aligned (and the tool is available to them 😉

So the question should be why the fight?

Excel can do loads of stuff rather effectively, such as vast tables, but it falls down when it steps outside its conceptual boundaries - lots of folk are schooled on using tabular methods, it works for them.

Mathcad likewise can do loads of stuff rather effectively. It's schooling is from engineering maths, and it shows, and it's very very good at it. You get real equations. You get integrated units and dimensions checking. You get proper vectors and matrices.

Neither do 3d matrices though, but C, C++, Matlab, Mathematica, Haskell and F# do, and we live in a 3d world, so clearly [ 😉 ] we should neither use Excel nor Mathcad. Shouldn't we [rhet].

The reality is that it is a Scissors, Paper, Stone argument. The Excel extensions are useful for some but in no way meet the needs of real Mathcad users. Mathcad is still unique in the high ground it holds, but does need to tend to its hinterland if it isn't to be undercut, when it could be expanding and cooperating with its key neighbours.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement