We performed a comparison between Ataccama ONE Platform and Informatica Data Quality based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Quality solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The desktop version of the solution was particularly valuable to me, primarily for creating components. We opted for the data quality aspect to assess the quality of our data warehouse. The functionalities available allowed us to not only check data quality but also serve as an ETL tool. This versatility enabled data transformation and storage in various formats, including files on platforms like SharePoint or local online directories. The flexibility of the tool catered to the specific needs of those building components, contributing to our desired outcomes."
"The drag-and-drop feature is incredibly flexible and straightforward."
"The product’s important feature is data profiling and quality check."
"The notable aspect lies in the workflow structure, where building the workflow aligns significantly with data governance."
"The ease of use of the user console is valuable."
"I like the connectivity and richness of features for the technical team, the maturity of the product, and that it had a cloud version. There is Informatica Cloud, and it is part of the Informatica Cloud platform."
"It is very useful for testing purposes and designing mappings for small projects. If you go for IDQ in the mapping itself, you can see the data. You can then correct it, and test it so easily. It is working fine. It is also stable, scalable, and easy to deploy."
"There are a couple of valuable features. One is that it is very quick on the profiling. So, you get a very fast snapshot of the type of data that you're looking at from the profiling perspective. It can highlight anomalies in the data."
"The profiling feature in Informatica Data Quality is incredibly effective for data governance."
"The solution is stable."
"Seeing the data in the mapping itself is really nice."
"I am impressed by the solution's interface."
"We use it for various use cases, including data provisioning, data validation, continuous monitoring of data quality, and data standardization."
"There is a notable challenge in having to provide detailed filters before the site recognizes the search criteria."
"I believe it would be beneficial if it could enhance its flexibility to connect with a wider range of downstream systems beyond just Excel and Postgres."
"Speaking specifically about the version we use, version 12.3, I'm unsure if this has been addressed in subsequent versions. One improvement I'd like to see pertains to the language used in certain components, especially in data quality checks. The language complexity posed a challenge for beginners. Although we had on-site assistance from Ataccama, making it manageable for us, some individuals found it difficult to comprehend, necessitating additional support. The provision of a comprehensive guide for on-premise installation can also be enhanced. The lack of detailed information on the solution's workings and the overwhelming nature of notifications, with extensive content, were areas of concern. Streamlining the notification content in newer versions would significantly expedite issue resolution."
"It is complicated to fetch 20-25 reports when we profile the data."
"Data movement is a pain."
"Managing the licenses with the on-premises version was difficult."
"It can be improved in terms of performance and execution. I'm expecting better performance. It currently has some restrictions in terms of execution. For example, if we want to run it in the command mode and execute it, there are some restrictions, and we are facing some issues with a huge volume of data. These restrictions are not there in Informatica PowerCenter because we are able to execute a huge volume of data, and there are more ways to execute it."
"Informatica is very expensive."
"Exploring the possibility of incorporating AI capabilities that can suggest additional rules would significantly streamline our data analysis process following data profiling."
"Their UI needs improvement. Their scorecards and reporting also need improvement. Their data quality reporting, especially their dashboards and scorecards, is lackluster at best. Its reporting capabilities are limited. If you want to do anything beyond its limited reporting capabilities, then you're going to have to use an external reporting tool such as Power BI or something like that."
"I would like to see better visuals for business users, such as a dashboard where they can precisely track where problems are."
"The customer servive and support could be faster. There is a slow turnaround."
"The tools required to migrate existing mappings and server rules through cloud data quality are not available."
Ataccama ONE Platform is ranked 8th in Data Quality with 5 reviews while Informatica Data Quality is ranked 1st in Data Quality with 18 reviews. Ataccama ONE Platform is rated 7.8, while Informatica Data Quality is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Ataccama ONE Platform writes "Robust data management and governance praised for its user-friendly interface and scalability, but potential drawbacks include the need for improvements in search functionality". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Informatica Data Quality writes "Offers cloud version, good connectivity and data profiling features ". Ataccama ONE Platform is most compared with Microsoft Purview Data Governance, Collibra Governance, Informatica MDM, Profisee and Microsoft MDS, whereas Informatica Data Quality is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Quality, Talend Data Quality, Trillium TS Quality, Oracle Data Quality and SAP Data Services. See our Ataccama ONE Platform vs. Informatica Data Quality report.
See our list of best Data Quality vendors.
We monitor all Data Quality reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
