Melissa Data Quality vs Precisely Trillium comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Melissa Data Quality
Ranking in Data Quality
9th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
Data Scrubbing Software (5th)
Precisely Trillium
Ranking in Data Quality
15th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Data Quality category, the mindshare of Melissa Data Quality is 4.5%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Precisely Trillium is 2.5%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Quality
Unique Categories:
Data Scrubbing Software
11.4%
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

GM
Feb 21, 2024
SSIS MatchUp Component is Amazing
- Scalability is a limitation as it is single threaded. You can bypass this limitation by partitioning your data (say by alphabetic ranges) into multiple dataflows but even within a single dataflow the tool starts to really bog down if you are doing survivorship on a lot of columns. It's just very old technology written that's starting to show its age since it's been fundamentally the same for many years. To stay relavent they will need to replace it with either ADF or SSIS-IR compliant version. - Licensing could be greatly simplified. As soon as a license expires (which is specific to each server) the product stops functioning without prior notice and requires a new license by contacting the vendor. And updating the license is overly complicated. - The tool needs to provide resizable forms/windows like all other SSIS windows. Vendor claims its an SSIS limitation but that isn't true since pretty much all SSIS components are resizable except theirs! This is just an annoyance but needless impact on productivity when developing new data flows. - The tool needs to provide for incremental matching using the MatchUp for SSIS tool (they provide this for other solutions such as standalone tool and MatchUp web service). We had to code our own incremental logic to work around this. - Tool needs ability to sort mapped columns in the GUI when using advanced survivorship (only allowed when not using column-level survivorship). - It should provide an option for a procedural language (such as C# or VB) for survivor-ship expressions rather than relying on SSIS expression language. - It should provide a more sophisticated ability to concatenate groups of data fields into common blocks of data for advanced survivor-ship prioritization (we do most of this in SQL prior to feeding the data to the tool). - It should provide the ability to only do survivor-ship with no matching (matching is currently required when running data through the tool). - Tool should provide a component similar to BDD to enable the ability to split into multiple thread matches based on data partitions for matching and survivor-ship rather than requiring custom coding a parallel capable solution. We broke down customer data by first letter of last name into ranges of last names so we could run parallel data flows. - Documentation needs to be provided that is specific to MatchUp for SSIS. Most of their wiki pages were written for the web service API MatchUp Object rather than the SSIS component. - They need to update their wiki site documentation as much of it is not kept current. Its also very very basic offering very little in terms of guidelines. For example, the tool is single-threaded so getting great performance requires running multiple parallel data flows or BDD in a data flow which you can figure out on your own but many SSIS practitioners aren't familiar with those techniques. - The tool can hang or crash on rare occasions for unknown reason. Restarting the package resolves the problem. I suspect they have something to do with running on VM (vendor doesn't recommend running on VM) but have no evidence to support it. When it crashes it creates dump file with just vague message saying the executable stopped running.
Use Precisely Trillium?
Share your opinion

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

"Cloud version is very cheap. On-premise version is expensive."
"​You should have a good idea of the size of your data and the amount of cleansing you will be doing, so you will purchase the appropriate size bundle.​"
"​We are concerned that our own pricing is going up every year for Melissa Data products, but we highly recommend the services for people who are routinely sending out mailings."
"Generally, the cost is ROI positive, depending on your shipping volume."
"Pricing is very reasonable."
"Melissa pricing is competitive."
"I think it's worth the value for me to run it."
"Be sure to determine how the data is priced (record-based versus credit-based or some hybrid of data and services)."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Quality solutions are best for your needs.
789,135 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
7%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Syncsort Trillium, Trillium, TSS, Syncsort Trillium Software System
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Boeing Co., FedEx, Ford Motor Co, Hewlett Packard, Meade-Johnson, Microsoft, Panasonic, Proctor & Gamble, SAAB Cars USA, Sony, Walt Disney, Weight Watchers, and Intel.
Toyota Material Handling Australia, Westpac Pacific Banking, Symphony Health, Wimbledon, OCBC Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Informatica, SAP, Talend and others in Data Quality. Updated: June 2024.
789,135 professionals have used our research since 2012.