Skip to dashboard content
MAPE
Scenario A MAPE
22%
↓ lower is better
Scenario B MAPE
20%
↓ lower is better
MAPE Δ%
-8%
Bias
Scenario A Bias
-4%
→ closer to 0 is better
Scenario B Bias
-4%
→ closer to 0 is better
Bias Δ
0%
External Error
Ext Err Under A
1%
→ vs prior
Ext Err Under B
1%
→ vs prior
Ext Under Δ
0%
Ext Err Over A
0%
→ vs prior
Ext Err Over B
0%
→ vs prior
Ext Over Δ
0%

Scenario A vs Scenario B MAPE

Each point represents an item/location
Points below the diagonal = Scenario B outperforms A
● B ≥ A (on or above line) ▲ B < A (below line)

MAPE by Lag

Side-by-side comparison across forecast horizons
DS Base DS Base + (MS)

Bias by Lag

Forecast bias comparison across lag horizons
DS Base DS Base + (MS)

Key Insights

Auto-generated comparison summary
  • MAPE Improvement: Scenario B shows 8% lower MAPE overall — better forecast accuracy.
  • Bias: Both scenarios show identical bias at -4% — slight under-forecasting tendency.
  • Short-term Lags (0-3): Scenario B consistently outperforms A by 2-3% MAPE.
  • Long-term Lags (9-12): Gap narrows — both scenarios converge at higher error rates.
  • External Error: Minimal difference — both at ~1% under, ~0% over.

Scenario Detail Comparison

Drill down by Location and Item — conditional formatting highlights significant differences
Location Item MAPE A MAPE B MAPE Δ% Bias A Bias B Bias Δ Ext Under A Ext Under B Ext Over A Ext Over B