We performed a comparison between AWS Glue and IBM Infosphere DataStage based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: For users vested in the AWS ecosystem, AWS is hands down the best choice. Users are happier with the pricing, too. IBM Infosphere can handle a significant amount of data quickly and easily. Once IBM Infosphere DataStage finetunes processes and moves toward a greater focus on cloud technologies, it will become a more desirable solution in today’s cloud-focused marketplace.
"What I like best about AWS Glue is its real-time data backup feature. Last week, there was a production push, and what used to take almost ten days to send out around fifty-six thousand emails now takes only two hours."
"I like its integration and ability to handle all data-related tasks."
"Our entire use case was very easily handled or solved using this solution."
"Its user interface is quite good. You just need to choose some options to create a job in AWS Glue. The code-generation feature is also useful. If you don't want to customize it and simply want to read a file and store the data in the database, it can generate the code for you."
"AWS Glue is quite better than other tools, but you have to learn it properly before you start using it."
"The solution is serverless so it allows us to transform data while optimizing the cost and performance of Spark jobs."
"We have found it beneficial when moving data from one source to another."
"AWS Glue is a good solution for developers, they have the ability to write code in different languages and other software."
"We can view what we want to do. We can transform data and put them on tables."
"The concept of integration is a valuable feature of the product."
"The ETL tools are probably the most valuable feature. It has an IBM tool, a friendly UI and it makes things more comfortable."
"Finding logs is very easy on the solution."
"The Hierarchical Data Stage is good."
"The solution has improved the time it takes to perform tasks related to batch applications."
"It is quite useful and powerful."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability to incorporate very complex business rules in Data Stage."
"The crucial problem with AWS Glue is that it only works with AWS. It is not an agnostic tool like Pentaho. In PowerCenter, we can install the forms from Google and other vendors, but in the case of AWS Glue, we can only use AWS."
"I have encountered challenges with multi-region support."
"The technical support for this solution could be improved. In future, we would like to connect more services like Athena or Kinesis to help control more loads of data."
"The solution's visual ETL tool is of no use for actual implementation."
"AWS Glue would be improved by making it easier to switch from single to multi-cloud."
"Only people who can code, either in Java or Python, can use the product freely. Those who don't know Java or Python might find using AWS Glue difficult."
"There is a learning curve to this tool."
"Overall, I consider the technical support to be fine, although the response time could be faster in certain cases."
"Its documentation is not up to the mark. While building APIs, we had a lot of problems trying to get around it because it is not very user-friendly. We tried to get hold of API documentation, but the documentation is not very well thought out. It should be more structured and elaborate. In terms of additional features, I would like to see good reporting on performance and performance-tuning recommendations that can be based on AI. I would also like to see better data profiling information being reported on InfoSphere."
"I really like this tool, but the administration should be on the same client application because a lot of administration features are not on the client-side, and they usually need to have administrative access. It's quite complicated to force IT teams to have separate administrative access from the developers."
"The interface needs work to be more user-friendly."
"So, there are some features that are missing. If I compare DataStage to Talend, Talend allows you to write custom code in Java or use these tools in your applications as well if you are building a job application. But in DataStage, it does not allow you to write custom code for any component."
"It takes a lot of time to actually trigger your job and then go into the logs and other stuff. So all of this is really time-consuming."
"The interface needs improvement."
"In terms of intermediate storage, we have some challenges, especially with customers who store data in intermediate locations."
"Improvements for DataStage could include better integration with modern data sources like cloud solutions and documents, along with enhancing its capability to handle non-structured data."
AWS Glue is ranked 1st in Cloud Data Integration with 37 reviews while IBM InfoSphere DataStage is ranked 7th in Data Integration with 37 reviews. AWS Glue is rated 7.8, while IBM InfoSphere DataStage is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of AWS Glue writes "Provides serverless mechanism, easy data transformation and automated infrastructure management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM InfoSphere DataStage writes "User-friendly with a lot of functions for transmission rules, but has slow performance and not suitable for a huge volume of data". AWS Glue is most compared with AWS Database Migration Service, Informatica PowerCenter, SSIS, Informatica Cloud Data Integration and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI), whereas IBM InfoSphere DataStage is most compared with SSIS, IBM Cloud Pak for Data, Azure Data Factory, Talend Open Studio and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI). See our AWS Glue vs. IBM InfoSphere DataStage 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.
