I had previously used Amazon Redshift, Oracle Warehouse Builder, and Informatica before transitioning to Oracle Data Integrator.

I previously used Informatica and we switched because it did not support Oracle BI applications. If we stayed with Informatica we would have to use third-party tools.

I work on all the other integration products as well as ODI. In fact, I had to compare all the integration products (ODI, SSIS, HAL, Informatica, DataStage) when we were trying to decide on the strategic direction for the major bank that I was working for. HAL was being sunset, so easy decision there. DataStage cost a lot to host and was hard to develop in. Informatica was not installed anywhere in the corporation so the knowledge base for us wasn't there, so it got the boot too. It really came down to SSIS and ODI. We had a lot of SSIS knowledge and I was the only ODI developer. I took someone who never seen SSIS and ODI before, but had basic database knowledge, sat them in front of a computer, and gave them a day course on both. To be fair, after each course they had them create a job to do the same load. Results were clear and ODI won hands-down. ODI won out because of price, support, and speed/ease of development.

We evaluated Informatica, and we went with Oracle because the client was an Oracle user.

We are actually moving away from Oracle, as it's not very reasonable cost-wise.

What you can do on ODI, for example, can be done on SSIS from Microsoft too, which is free of cost.

We did not use a tool prior to ODI.

I have used other solutions previously.

We have used WSO2 Integration for a proof of concepts (POC) in our organization. We have also used Red Hat Fuse and Pentaho Data Integration. So, we have worked on these tools from an ESB point of view. Also, commercial ESBs like Oracle Enterprise. We primarily used Red Hat Fuse for APM and ACM, deployed specifically for one of our customers between 2015 and 2016. So, our recent experience is with Pentaho Data Integration and Hitachi Pentaho Data Integration.

We switched because of ODIs impressive increasement in development productivity.

I've used other solutions previously, such as Microsoft tools, they are much easier to set up. ODI is a bit clunky to begin operations, it requires a longer learning curve.

We are using this solution extensively.

Besides ODI I have used SSIS and Power Center Informatica, both are similar and typical ETL tools, ODI up until 11g version had some differences, for example in ODI 11g we call the integration object as"Interface" wheres in  Informatica it is called "Mappings" which has been implemented in the ODI 12c version.

I still could see the Oracle solution being more robust and more logical, not to mention when it comes to customization, in ODI I felt more freedom to develop and customize the built-in code and designer objects such as the models, interfaces, for example, you can run updates in the repository tables"SNP's".

Also, ODI handles high data volume more efficiently, of course, your database must be well tuned a good hardware helps a lot. The other difference is that you have more flexibility to manage the ODI metadata since everything is based on database .

A lot of the projects I've worked on recently are Oracle VM apps projects. So, it's the folks that are in the Informatica version of VI apps, and looking at moving to the latest and greatest, which has Oracle Data Integrator behind the scenes. I'm not saying they're actually talking about using Informatica, they're just, that's what they have. And they're looking to migrate. Quite often where we come into play, ODI is typically chosen at that point. And then they call us in to help with it.

I didn't switch any tool. I'm a professional developer and my tool selection is based on client requirements. I've used both SSIS and ODI for different clients.

We did previously use a variety of different solutions. So far, this product has been the best option for our organization. It has more features and integration capabilities. It's a bit more complex than other options.

As an independent consultant, I work with other ETL products, and switching is requirement of my employers. However, of the products I used recently (Informatica and Talend), I feel ODI gives me the most flexibility.

I have used a number of ETL tools. I like this one because it is part of Oracle Business Intelligence applications which is my primary focus. I would choose it over Informatica because you can develop more rapidly.

I've used Microsoft, but I think that ODI is simpler to use and offers more flexibility.

We decided to move away from Informatica after we attended an Oracle conference about three years ago. We learned a lot more about where Oracle was going with it. One of the key reasons was not just moving forward with the newer technology; it was also because of the compatibility with the applications we use versus the applications that were available in Infomatica.

We have the capability to extend it to other data sources, all of the non-standard data sources. We don't have to build out huge data structures in order to feed them in through Infomatica. We can read Excel spreadsheets and a bunch of other sources.

I have not used any other product. However, I have seen other ETL tools in use such as BODS, SOA, and Informatica and I did not like them as I did not that they were user friendly.

We upgraded because the old version was no longer supported. The new version comes with ODI, so we didn't have a choice. But, we like the product.

It didn’t come with any other option. However, even if we had another option, we would have gone with Oracle, because we are a big Oracle shop.

I've always worked with ODI for ETL development.

I started with this product.

I used DTS/SSIS, Cognos DM, and Informatica previously. They all have their little pros and cons. For ODI, the killer feature was the shared code. Plus, the whole EDW solution is built upon Oracle databases so it simply makes sense to use Oracle ELT tool.

We previously used Informatica when it was used with Hyperion, but it is not certified for Hyperion now. ODI is less expensive, and it can be installed on a desktop or a server for implementation. With ODI, you can do transformations on the source, staging or target databases.

We chose ODI because we have the Oracle Stack and we wanted to be in the Oracle space. We wanted a tool that will work long-term for Oracle, so that's why we chose ODI.

We previously used Oracle Warehouse Builder, which was discontinued by Oracle. Oracle Data Integrator is Oracle's strategic choice for ETL tooling going forward. We could not risk running out of support. That is why we had to buy licenses for Oracle Data Integrator (whereas Oracle Warehouse Builder came free with the Oracle database - until version 11.2).

I have a lot of experience on Oracle environments. I've started to have projects with my client using Oracle solutions. In my experience, ODI is a tool that is 100% compatible with all Oracle environments.

I used Oracle Warehouse Builder (OWB) which is now at the end of its life. ODI is much more flexible and has the great advantage to be able to connect to a lot of different source or target technologies.

I haven't used any other solutions since this product has the potential to provide a solution for any complex requirement.

This is the only ETL tool I have used and never found a need to look for another. It met all our needs.

Before this solution, we were using SQL Server.

Informatica and SSIS are also good ETL tools besides ODI.

Previously we used Oracle Warehouse builder, and custom made PL/SQL data warehouses. We’ve chosen Oracle Data integrator over other solutions because it is the successor of Oracle Warehouse builder, and Oracle Data Integrator provides a more structured working-method, and the data warehouse is easier to maintain.

We have always used Oracle because we are Oracle partners.

OWB: We switched because the this tool was at the end of its life.

I haven't used any other products.

Developed a project on SSIS (SQLServer Integration Services), and used to write ETL in scripts (PL/SQL).