We performed a comparison between Access PeopleXD and CloverETL based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Workday, Oracle, SAP and others in Benefits Administration."The solution is stable."
"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."
"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use."
"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"The solution has many areas in need of improvement, including management, monitoring, interface, dashboard and technical support."
"Its documentation could be improved."
"Needs: easier automated failure recovery; more, and more intuitive auto-generated/filled-in code for components; easier/more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."
"Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough."
Access PeopleXD is ranked 29th in Benefits Administration while CloverETL is ranked 61st in Data Integration. Access PeopleXD is rated 3.0, while CloverETL is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Access PeopleXD writes "Has many features in need of improvement, including its monitoring, interface, dashboard and technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CloverETL writes "Provides wealth of pre-defined, customizable components, and descriptive logging for errors". Access PeopleXD is most compared with MHR iTrent, whereas CloverETL is most compared with SSIS, Talend Open Studio and iWay Universal Adapter Framework.
We monitor all Benefits Administration 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.
