We performed a comparison between Informatica PowerCenter and Mule Anypoint Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The performance and design of Informatica have been very valuable. I find the performance faster than, say, Oracle Data Integrator or DataStage."
"It works with any multi-databases, so it works with Sybase, SQL Server. Also, the performance is really good and it is easy to use."
"PowerCenter performs well during data transformation and optimization."
"Good interface, reasonable documentation."
"The reliability of the product and the way of orchestration of different services is valuable to us."
"The support is valuable. There are also open-source ETL products, which work very well, but there is no support. When we face a production problem, being able to get support is valuable, and it brings efficiency. With an open-source solution, we can't engage anyone to resolve the problem as quickly as possible."
"It has a Data Catalog that uses the Model repository."
"Informatica PowerCenter is a very good ETL tool."
"I have found several things most valuable, including its very quick implementation that you can use a lot of out of the box templates, and lastly that it is a very mature product, especially in hybrid integration."
"MuleSoft Anypoint Platform's most valuable features are its observability and stability."
"This is the easiest and best tool available."
"The exchange and API management features are the best in the market."
"Whenever we need some support in our local language, we get it easily. They also have an office in Germany and if a person is unable to contact them by phone, they can go to the office in person."
"Mule Anypoint Platform is our preferred platform for integration."
"It can scale."
"Mule Anypoint Platform's valuable features are its flexibility in terms of deployment and its SaaS capabilities."
"Areas for improvement in Informatica PowerCenter include scalability and high availability or the clustering configuration because that's still very basic. The elasticity or scaling of the platform needs a lot of improvement. For example, when it comes to DR handling or building an active-active or active-passive cluster, Informatica PowerCenter is still not that powerful. Automation also needs improvement in the solution. Improving automation leads to some improvement in the stability of Informatica PowerCenter and other aspects related to it. What I'd like to see in the next release of Informatica PowerCenter is real-time capability because the solution is mainly for patches, and to have real-time integration, you need to count on some additional components from Informatica. I would expect more integration and a complete platform in terms of real-time capability or patching with minimal interventions or minimal components to be aligned together."
"Some of the conversions are done inside the product. We use work tables that are created by the engine itself, but the names of the work tables are very long, and they don't have any meaning, which makes it a bit difficult to understand and follow exactly what is happening inside."
"It should be more cloud-centric than on-prem-centric."
"The only problem with this product is the level of complexity with the number of levels of transformation that you have to go through."
"I would like to see an improvement in the digital adoption."
"The solution's commercial cost is very high. Other open-source tools can do the tool's functions for free. The world is moving to the cloud, but the solution hasn't updated its drivers. I presume that its downfall will start soon. The tool is trying to cross-sell or upsell without helping customers derive benefits from the existing products. They have multiple tools and licenses. It is better to bring the smaller tools in one umbrella."
"The UI is a little outdated."
"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."
"Although the solution's proxy design and process are good, it faces connecting issues because it lacks data integration."
"It has different types of subscriptions. For platinum or lower subscriptions, there are not too many things that can be done. We don't see many features. They should release a basic version that has logging and monitoring features. These features should come with Mule Anypoint Platform for free instead of making customers pay separately for these features. Its dashboard can be improved to have a lot of charts so that it is easy to visualize information. The utilization part can be improved. The dashboard is good currently, but it can be better. Other solutions like Elastic have a good dashboard, and they allow you to administer the product from the UI. Currently, for RTF, there is a different dashboard or utility. It would be good to include the same utility in the cloud solution. It would be good if there is a centralized repository that includes the links to the information about various troubleshooting issues. The documentation is there currently, and it is good, but the troubleshooting information is too scattered. We have to go to different links to find troubleshooting information. This kind of centralized repository would be helpful for new customers who are implementing this solution. It will be helpful to see different kinds of issues that can occur."
"The runtime management and connectors could use some work and are vulnerable to breakage after upgrades."
"Mule Anypoint Platform could improve by having better integration with MDM. There are challenges when doing the interaction at this time."
"What I hear from my customers is that it's very expensive compared to the cost of other integration suites. The cost keeps increasing. MuleSoft should come up with customization factors by using a different way of getting the cost-related stuff to attract customers. That is, they should come up with some cost optimizations."
"The initial setup should be made easy and the documentation should have some guidance."
"The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required, especially when compared to other tools, like Dell Boomi or Oracle."
"An on-premise setup requires special skills and you need a lot of professional services."
Informatica PowerCenter is ranked 3rd in Data Integration with 78 reviews while Mule Anypoint Platform is ranked 3rd in Cloud Data Integration with 41 reviews. Informatica PowerCenter is rated 8.0, while Mule Anypoint Platform is rated 8.2. 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 Mule Anypoint Platform writes "Robust, reliable, and stable, ensuring high availability for critical integrations". Informatica PowerCenter is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Integration, Azure Data Factory, SSIS, Databricks and AWS Glue, whereas Mule Anypoint Platform is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, SAP Process Orchestration, Oracle Integration Cloud Service and SAP Cloud Platform. See our Informatica PowerCenter vs. Mule Anypoint Platform report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
