We performed a comparison between Informatica PowerCenter and SAS Data Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Informatica, Oracle and others in Data Integration."The most valuable features are the metadata repository and the data warehouse application console."
"UI-based ability to create data mapping."
"The technical support is excellent."
"It has helped us monetize."
"I like the automated scheduling feature."
"It has a Data Catalog that uses the Model repository."
"Informatica PowerCenter has good user feedback. The developers can easily make mappings in the solution."
"It is an excellent ETL tool."
"If you compare it to SQL, the memory and development times are very quick."
"In terms of which features I have found most valuable, I would say the importing and exporting features. Additionally, the data sorting, categorizing and summarizing features, especially how it can summarize based on categories. These are the key features."
"The tool is reliable, quick, and powerful."
"The technical support is excellent."
"This is an established product with powerful data analysis and varied options for user entry points."
"I am impressed with the tool's ability to customize."
"The solution is very stable. We haven't faced any issues with glitches or bugs. We haven't had any crashes."
"The product offers very good flexibility."
"Informatica PowerCenter could improve by having a single interface because half of the system is still in the legacy interface and many other elements are moved to the developer client. It would be good if there was a single interface for the end user and developers."
"The pricing could be improved."
"It would be good to recreate the entire interface to make it easier for users to build workflows."
"Its interface can be modernized. It is an old product. I have been working with it for 14 years, and it still looks the same. It hasn't been modernized much. It also needs to handle more modern formats, such as JSON files. It works with the old text files and databases, but it does not always work with the newer, modern stuff. You need to make your own programs to support that kind of stuff. Support is also a kind of difficult with Informatica. They don't do direct support and rely on using their distributors around the globe for support, which means that you kind of have to go through this layer of different companies before you get help."
"What needs improvement in Informatica PowerCenter is the cloud experience because, nowadays, other companies, such as AWS, Azure, and Google, have more experience in the cloud. The pricing for Informatica PowerCenter on the cloud is also very expensive for customers, so some customers prefer open-source tools or lower-priced tools, such as Azure. From my point of view, Informatica must work on the pricing policy and review the policy on the cloud for Informatica PowerCenter or propose more tools with lower pricing. Clients want the automatic integration of Informatica PowerCenter with other tools. Currently, the integration process is manual, and you have to add other tools to facilitate the integration, especially with the DevOps methodology. You need scripts and tools for the integration, and you'll need to use other integration tools if you want automatic deployment for Informatica PowerCenter, so this is another area for improvement in the solution. What I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is for the integration with APIs to be simpler, because currently, the API integration feature of Informatica PowerCenter is very difficult. It's not intuitive. You have to facilitate API integration and the real-time streaming of messages in Kafka, for example, so that should be improved."
"Support could be better."
"We need another tool for monitoring. It would be easier if all the features were consolidated into one tool."
"This solution needs the functionality to do batch processing of data. It also lacks connectivity to NoSQL, unstructured data sources."
"The pricing of the solution needs to be improved. They need to work to make it more affordable."
"We implemented it a while ago, and we are trying to improve the data delivery performance. We are looking into how to get faster and automated reporting. We would need better designs and workflows."
"The solution is quite expensive and hard to install/configure."
"I would like the tool to include the ability to automate the modifications of the integrations."
"Very little needs to improve but perhaps a nicer graphic interface and remaining competetive in the growing field of data analytics."
"The solution could use better documentation."
"We find we often have to go back and re-train users when there are changes made to the solution because the changes are not intuitive."
"With SAS Data Management, you have to purchase an external driver, configure all of the tables for all of the data that you will extract from Salesforce. It's not a straightforward process."
Informatica PowerCenter is ranked 3rd in Data Integration with 78 reviews while SAS Data Management is ranked 40th in Data Integration with 15 reviews. Informatica PowerCenter is rated 8.0, while SAS Data Management is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Informatica PowerCenter writes "Stable, provides good support, and integrating it with other systems is very fast, but its pricing is expensive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAS Data Management writes "A scalable solution with customer support that is responsive and diligent". Informatica PowerCenter is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Integration, Azure Data Factory, SSIS, Databricks and AWS Glue, whereas SAS Data Management is most compared with Microsoft Purview, Tungsten RPA, IBM InfoSphere DataStage, Collibra Governance and Palantir Foundry.
See our list of best Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Data Integration 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.