All the top dogs in the Monte Carlo Analysis spreadsheet universe have distribution-fitting capabilities. Their interfaces have common elements, of course, since they rely on (for the most part) the same PDFs in their arsenal of distribution-fitters. There are important differences, to be sure. It is hoped this comparison will illustrate pros and cons from a practical standpoint. Before going over our scorecard between Crystal Ball and ModelRisk, there is one more very important capability category begging for review: Correlation.
Let the battle begin anew. We continue our journey in uncertainty modeling, having understood how to fit distributions to data using Crystal Ball (CB). How does that experience compare to what ModelRisk (MR) has to offer?
Open the Duke 09_10 Scores spreadsheet with ModelRisk loaded in the Excel environment. We will first create the MR Objects representing the fitted PDFs. (Just as with the CB exercise, it is good practice to examine a variety of best-fitting distributions, rather than blindly accepting the top dog.) Then, in distinctly separate cells, we will create the VoseSimulate functions that behave as sampled values from the PDFs modeled by the MR Objects.
As with Crystal Ball, ModelRisk has the ability to fit distributions to historical data. The analyst looking to describe the variation of a Monte Carlo Analysis input can use "fitting" windows to select data and manipulate other options. How does the ModelRisk (MR) fitting experience stack up against the Crystal Ball (CB) methods and options? There are some important differences one should understand about MR before fitting PDFs to the Duke 09_10 Scores spreadsheet.