We performed a comparison between Informatica PowerCenter and Palantir Foundry based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is stable."
"The technical support is excellent."
"I like the completeness of the way I can build ETL workflows."
"The ability to scale through partitions helped us to improve the performance."
"Reusable definition of data sources and the out-of-the-box availability of a large number maplets for common transformation functions."
"It reduces a lot of legacy coding."
"Easy, scalable, robust platform to integrate heterogeneous source platform's data into the unified data warehouse."
"It is very comprehensive in terms of connector and transformation capabilities from both a source and target perspective."
"The interface is really user-friendly."
"The virtualization tool is useful."
"Live video sessions enhance the available documentation and allow you to ask questions directly."
"The solution provides an end-to-end integrated tech stack that takes care of all utility/infrastructure topics for you."
"It's scalable."
"Palantir Foundry is a robust platform that has really strong plugin connectors and provides features for real-time integration."
"The solution offers very good end-to-end capabilities."
"Encapsulates all the components without the requirement to integrate or check compatibility."
"Integrated Reporting service should be more smoothly transitioned from view to function to be in sync with the main design."
"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."
"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."
"The UI is a little outdated."
"There can be scalability issues. Huge amounts of data ingestion will impact performance."
"Informatica, in my opinion, is very rigid and not very flexible, whereas platforms like Alteryx or Matillion are very flexible and agile."
"This product is going to decommission in the next couple of years."
"Its licensing can be improved. It should be features-wise and not bundle-wise. A bundle will definitely be costly. In addition, we might use one or two features. That's why the pricing model should be based on the features. The model should be flexible enough based on the features. Their support should also be more responsive to premium customers."
"There is not a wide user base for the solution's online documentation so it is sometimes difficult to find answers."
"Some error messages can be very cryptic."
"It requires a lot of manual work and is very time-consuming to get to a functional point."
"Difficult to receive data from external sources."
"Compared to other hyperscalers, Palantir Foundry is complex and not so user-intuitive."
"The workflow could be improved."
"The frontend capabilities of Palantir Foundry could be improved."
"They do not have a data center in Europe, and we have lots of personally identifiable information in our dataset that needs to be hosted by a third-party data center like Amazon or Microsoft Azure."
Informatica PowerCenter is ranked 3rd in Data Integration with 78 reviews while Palantir Foundry is ranked 11th in Data Integration with 13 reviews. Informatica PowerCenter is rated 8.0, while Palantir Foundry is rated 7.6. 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 Palantir Foundry writes "The data visualization is fantastic and the security is excellent". Informatica PowerCenter is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Integration, Azure Data Factory, SSIS, Databricks and AWS Glue, whereas Palantir Foundry is most compared with Azure Data Factory, Palantir Gotham, SAP Data Services, AWS Glue and BCG Big Data & Advanced Analytics. See our Informatica PowerCenter vs. Palantir Foundry report.
See our list of best Data Integration vendors and best Cloud 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.