We performed a comparison between CloverETL and SAS Data Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Informatica, Oracle and others in Data Integration."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."
"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use."
"If you compare it to SQL, the memory and development times are very quick."
"The tool is reliable, quick, and powerful."
"In terms of which features I have found most valuable, I would say the importing and exporting features. Additionally, the data sorting, categorizing and summarizing features, especially how it can summarize based on categories. These are the key features."
"The technical support is excellent."
"The solution is very stable. We haven't faced any issues with glitches or bugs. We haven't had any crashes."
"Its robustness is valuable. It is a full-fledged suite. We have a data warehouse model, and there are also a lot of data quality management tools. The repository and all other tools are there. So, it is a full package in terms of reporting tools."
"The product offers very good flexibility."
"I am impressed with the tool's ability to customize."
"Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough."
"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."
"I would like the tool to include the ability to automate the modifications of the integrations."
"The solution is quite expensive and hard to install/configure."
"We find we often have to go back and re-train users when there are changes made to the solution because the changes are not intuitive."
"The pricing of the solution needs to be improved. They need to work to make it more affordable."
"One problem is accessing the data using a solution other than SAS. The SAS data, which we create in the SAS, cannot be accessed by other tools. We can't open those data in other applications. So we need to have that application in place."
"With SAS Data Management, you have to purchase an external driver, configure all of the tables for all of the data that you will extract from Salesforce. It's not a straightforward process."
"Very little needs to improve but perhaps a nicer graphic interface and remaining competetive in the growing field of data analytics."
"We implemented it a while ago, and we are trying to improve the data delivery performance. We are looking into how to get faster and automated reporting. We would need better designs and workflows."
Earn 20 points
CloverETL is ranked 57th in Data Integration while SAS Data Management is ranked 40th in Data Integration with 15 reviews. CloverETL is rated 7.0, while SAS Data Management is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CloverETL writes "Provides wealth of pre-defined, customizable components, and descriptive logging for errors". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAS Data Management writes "A scalable solution with customer support that is responsive and diligent". CloverETL is most compared with Talend Open Studio, iWay Universal Adapter Framework, Informatica PowerCenter and SSIS, whereas SAS Data Management is most compared with Informatica PowerCenter, Microsoft Purview, Tungsten RPA, IBM InfoSphere DataStage and Collibra Governance.
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.