We performed a comparison between Anaconda and Darwin based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Microsoft, Alteryx and others in Data Science Platforms."The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the Jupyter notebook that allows us to write the Python code, compile it on the fly, and then look at the results."
"The documentation is excellent and the solution has a very large and active community that supports it."
"The notebook feature is an improvement over RStudio."
"The virtual environment is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the set of libraries that are used to support the functionality that we require."
"I can use Anaconda for non-heavy tasks."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its cloud-based nature, allowing accessibility from anywhere. Additionally, using Jupyter Notebook makes it easy to handle bugs and errors."
"The solution helps with the automatic assessment of the quality of datasets, such as missing data points or incorrect data types."
"The thing that I find most valuable is the ability to clean the data."
"The most valuable feature is the model-generation. With a nice dataset, Darwin gives you a nice model. That's a really nice feature because, if we're doing that ourselves, it's trial and error; we change the parameters a little and try again. We save time by just giving the dataset to Darwin and letting Darwin generate a model. We find the models it generates are good; better than we can generate."
"In terms of streamlining a lot of the low-level data science work, it does a few things there."
"I liked the data checking feature where it looks at your data and sees how viable it is for use. That's a really cool feature. Automatic assessment of the quality of datasets, to me, seems very valuable."
"Darwin has increased efficiency and productivity for our company. With our risk management team, there were models that took them more than three days to process each, only to see the outcome. Now, it takes minutes for Darwin to process the current model. So, we can have it in minutes. We don't have to wait three days for all the models to be tested, then make a decision."
"I find it quite simple to use. Once you are trained on the model, you can use it anyway you want."
"The key feature is the automated model-building. It has a good UI that will let people who aren't data scientists get in there and upload datasets and actually start building models, with very little training. They don't need to have any understanding of data science."
"Anaconda should be optimized for RAM consumption."
"Anaconda could benefit from improvement in its user interface to make it more attractive and user-friendly. Currently, it's boring."
"Anaconda can't handle heavy workloads."
"One feature that I would like to see is being able to use a different language in a different cell, which would allow me to mix R and Python together."
"The solution would benefit from offering more automation."
"The ability to schedule scripts for the building and monitoring of jobs would be an advantage for this platform."
"The interface could be improved. Other solutions, like Visual Studio, have much better UI."
"When you install Anaconda for the first time, it's really difficult to update it."
"Our main data repository is on AWS. The trouble we are having is that we have to download the data from our repository to bring it into Darwin. It would be great if there was an API to connect our repository to Darwin."
"An area where Darwin might be a little weak is its automatic assessment of the quality of datasets. The first results it produces in this area are good, but in our experience, we have found that extra analysis is needed to produce an extra-clean set of data."
"The Read Me's and the tutorials need to be greatly improved to get customers to understand how things work. It might be helpful to have some sample data sets for people to play around with, as well as some tutorial videos. It was very hard to find information on this in the time crunch that we had, to see how it worked and then make it work, while interfacing with folks at SparkCognition."
"Something they are working on, which is great, is to have an API that can access data directly from the source. Currently, we have to create a specific dataset for each model."
"There are issues around the ethics of artificial intelligence and machine learning. You need to have a lot of transparency regarding what is going on under the hood in order to trust it. Because so much is done under the hood of Darwin, it is hard to trust how it gets the answers it gets."
"There's always room for improvement in the UI and continuing to evolve it to do everything that the rest of AI can do."
"The challenge is very big toward making models operational or to industrialize them. E.g., what we want to do is to make unique credit models for each customer. So, we are preparing the types of customers who we can try new credit models on Darwin. But, I see this still very challenging to be able to get the data sets so Darwin can work. At this point, we are working it to get the data sets ready for Darwin."
"The analyze function takes a lot of time."
Earn 20 points
Anaconda is ranked 13th in Data Science Platforms with 15 reviews while Darwin is ranked 27th in Data Science Platforms. Anaconda is rated 7.8, while Darwin is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Anaconda writes "Offers free version and is helpful to handle small-scale workloads". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Darwin writes "Empowers SMEs to build solutions and interface them with the existing business systems, products and workflows". Anaconda is most compared with Databricks, Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Studio, Amazon SageMaker, Microsoft Power BI and IBM SPSS Statistics, whereas Darwin is most compared with IBM Watson Studio, Databricks and Microsoft Azure Machine Learning Studio.
See our list of best Data Science Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Data Science Platforms 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.
