Compare Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse vs. SAND [EOL]

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use SAND [EOL]? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Snowflake Computing, Oracle, Apache and others in Data Warehouse. Updated: July 2020.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pricing and Cost Advice
Microsoft has an agreement with the government in our country, so our customers get their licensing costs from the Ministry. Whenever we work with any government, company, or government institute, which is mainly what we are doing, that license comes directly from the Ministry of Technology and Information.I think the program is well-priced compared to the other offerings that are out in the market.

More Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse Pricing and Cost Advice »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Warehouse solutions are best for your needs.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
7th
out of 32 in Data Warehouse
Views
2,634
Comparisons
1,930
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
463
Avg. Rating
7.7
Unranked
In Data Warehouse
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Microsoft PDW, SQL Server Data Warehouse, Microsoft SQL Server Parallel Data Warehouse
Learn
Microsoft
SAND Technology
Video Not Available
Overview

The traditional structured relational data warehouse was never designed to handle the volume of exponential data growth, the variety of semi-structured and unstructured data types, or the velocity of real time data processing. Microsoft's SQL Server data warehouse solution integrates your traditional data warehouse with non-relational data and it can handle data of all sizes and types, with real-time performance.

SAND delivers a world class performing Enterprise Analytic Database Platform. The SAND Platform is a patented columnar database management system (CDBMS), delivering optimal performance for every user. Generation based concurrency control (GBCC) technology supports thousands of concurrent users with massive and constantly growing data. SAND delivers on the promise of sharing data throughout the Enterprise, providing instant access, driving decision-making, and ensuring the best information is in the hands of the right people at the right time.

Offer
Learn more about Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse
Learn more about SAND [EOL]
Sample Customers
Auckland Transport, Erste Bank Group, Urban Software Institute, NJVC, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, Tata Steel Europe
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company30%
Comms Service Provider10%
Healthcare Company10%
Hospitality Company10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company34%
Financial Services Firm8%
Comms Service Provider7%
Media Company7%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Snowflake Computing, Oracle, Apache and others in Data Warehouse. Updated: July 2020.
431,670 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is ranked 7th in Data Warehouse with 9 reviews while SAND [EOL] is ranked unranked in Data Warehouse. Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is rated 7.6, while SAND [EOL] is rated 0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse writes "Collects data through SSIS packages from different sources and puts them all in one data repository". On the other hand, Microsoft Parallel Data Warehouse is most compared with Microsoft Azure SQL Data Warehouse, Oracle Exadata, Snowflake, VMware Tanzu Greenplum and Teradata, whereas SAND [EOL] is most compared with .

See our list of best Data Warehouse vendors and best Cloud Data Warehouse vendors.

We monitor all Data Warehouse 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.