We performed a comparison between IBM InfoSphere Information Server and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) 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."Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This solution is extremely flexible and scalable."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server is stable."
"The integration with different technologies is the most valuable feature."
"Most of the functions are very straightforward, like the data model, mapping, package, and load plan. Thus, a new user could get started very fast."
"It has the ability to easily load slowly changing dimensions."
"The CAEM is very useful in its modularity and portability."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Easy to understand, very developer-friendly, and has a big forum community and lots of documentation for support."
"In our DW/BI solution, ODI is the main tool to integrate the data in a daily batch way."
"The product has an ELT approach."
"Besides loading data, we do most of our transformations in ODI."
"This solution would benefit from the engine being made more lightweight."
"Their technical support needs improvement."
"There are certain shortcomings in the cloud side of the solution, where improvements are required."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server should be more scalable. It should have the option to change the configuration to run on a single, non-multiple node, or multi-threading processing."
"If there was an add-on tool to hide the performance issues and solve them for me, then I might be interested in that as it would provide me value."
"We used a third party to do the implementation of ODI."
"The initial setup is complex, especially if you also have to install a console."
"ODI could improve by focusing on streamlining its features without unnecessary overhead."
"The stability of the software could be improved. Sometimes, the software just crashes. "
"It would be really good if Oracle considered enabling the tool to integrate with some other platforms that are deprecated simply for commercial reasons"
"The interface of ODI could be improved. For example, navigating and finding functions can be difficult. For example, you have to know which step you need to go to look at where your job status is. The logical step is a bit complex compared to other tools. It's much easier to get a graphical view, but with ODI, it's graphical, plus you have to know all the other pieces that fit around it. You have to think about the logical and physical aspects."
"It lacks a suite of tools suitable for fully processing data and moving it into decision support warehouses."
More IBM InfoSphere Information Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM InfoSphere Information Server is ranked 36th in Data Integration with 7 reviews while Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is ranked 4th in Data Integration with 67 reviews. IBM InfoSphere Information Server is rated 8.4, while Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM InfoSphere Information Server writes "Prompt support, reliable, but lacking scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) writes "Straightforward to implement, scalable, and has good stability and documentation, but technical support could still be improved". IBM InfoSphere Information Server is most compared with IBM InfoSphere DataStage, Qlik Replicate, IBM Watson Knowledge Catalog, IBM Cloud Pak for Data and Oracle GoldenGate, whereas Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) is most compared with Oracle Integration Cloud Service, SSIS, Informatica PowerCenter, Azure Data Factory and Oracle GoldenGate. See our IBM InfoSphere Information Server vs. Oracle Data Integrator (ODI) report.
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.