We performed a comparison between Informatica PowerCenter and Jitterbit Harmony based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Informatica, Oracle and others in Data Integration."Informatica PowerCenter is very good for integrating a huge amount of data in a very short duration, such as a minute. It is also very easy to use. After you provide the source and the target, mappings are automatically done, which makes it easy to use for the development team."
"Once you figure it out, it is a powerful and simple ETL tool. Its stability has been very satisfactory."
"Informatica PowerCenter has been implementing mapping design, data flow, and workflow execution for years."
"Deployment was simple and straightforward."
"The interface is very clean and clear."
"It's a complete package, which is why we use this solution."
"The setup is straightforward."
"One of the most valuable features for us is the metadata repository because it can easily understand the lineage of first target mapping. My company and I also find Informatica really easy to use—when a consultant joins our company, in just a few days to a few weeks, they can understand how to use it—so we prefer to use this ETL tool."
"Jitterbit handles the most lines of data in a .csv and loads the quickest of any data loader I have tried."
"Integrity, ease of use, user-friendly user interface, and errorless logs are the most valuable features."
"It runs like an appliance and has tremendous throughput."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The Cloud Console for monitoring and troubleshooting data operations."
"Jitterbit provides the ability to quickly map data between files and databases."
"It is very easy to build integrations and processes to pull and push data."
"We only use small parts of the solution, however, the parts that we use are quite adequate."
"PowerCenter could integrate better with cloud applications. We had to do a lot of configuration work using API integrations to connect with cloud applications. Informatica Cloud Data Integration has a generic connector that you can use directly, so it's much easier."
"An issue which should be addressed is that the solution only allows us to do structured, as opposed to unstructured, data processing."
"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."
"Its interface can be modernized. It is an old product. I have been working with it for 14 years, and it still looks the same. It hasn't been modernized much. It also needs to handle more modern formats, such as JSON files. It works with the old text files and databases, but it does not always work with the newer, modern stuff. You need to make your own programs to support that kind of stuff. Support is also a kind of difficult with Informatica. They don't do direct support and rely on using their distributors around the globe for support, which means that you kind of have to go through this layer of different companies before you get help."
"There can be scalability issues. Huge amounts of data ingestion will impact performance."
"The developer tool documentation can be enhanced with a more clear explanation of each utility, accompanied by relevant examples, so that developers are able to create programs with ease."
"I would like to see it be able to import data from NoSQL."
"Informatica PowerCenter is outdated and would benefit from modernization. They should have a very good migration strategy from Informatica PowerCenter to AACF. Informatica PowerCenter there is no point in using it, you have to use a cloud version."
"Looping through complex data structures can be difficult."
"I would like the ability to offer a dedicated cloud version for security."
"I know with Salesforce updating the UI like they did, it slowed it down a lot."
"Sometimes we experience disconnections and I have to close all Jitterbit programs."
"The initial setup can be a little bit difficult."
"Sometimes additional connectors are needed."
"You need to have some development skills or hire a Jitterbit engineer to make changes."
"Its API management capabilities need improvement."
Informatica PowerCenter is ranked 3rd in Data Integration with 78 reviews while Jitterbit Harmony is ranked 35th in Data Integration with 13 reviews. Informatica PowerCenter is rated 8.0, while Jitterbit Harmony is rated 8.6. 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 Jitterbit Harmony writes "An easy-to-setup solution with good stability ". Informatica PowerCenter is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Integration, Azure Data Factory, SSIS, Databricks and AWS Glue, whereas Jitterbit Harmony is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Azure Data Factory, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, Mule Anypoint Platform and SnapLogic.
See our list of best Data Integration vendors and best Cloud 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.