We performed a comparison between AWS Glue and SAP Replication Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I appreciate AWS Glue for its cost-effectiveness."
"The key role for Glue is that it hosts our metadata before rolling out our actual data. This is the major advantage of using this solution and our clients client have been very satisfied with it."
"It's fairly straightforward as a product; it's not very complicated."
"AWS Glue is a stable and easy-to-use solution."
"I also like that you can add custom libraries like JAR files and use them. So, the ability to use a fast processing engine and embed basic jobs easily are significant advantages."
"I like that it's flexible, powerful, and allows you to write your own queries and scripts to get the needed transformations."
"We have found it beneficial when moving data from one source to another."
"The product has a valuable feature for data catalog."
"We can customize any workflow and we also like the business domain modeling that can be done."
"SAP is renovating different things. We are using external tools to connect as of now. It is going well, and now the new generation integration platforms are going to be pretty easy."
"SAP Replication Server is an application that I consider to be a robust system. It has proven to be highly reliable in my experience."
"It speeds up the performance in terms of how fast you are able to access the data, look at it, get it reported to you, and send it to somebody. It also reduces the amount of storage."
"It fails to handle massive databases acquired from various sources."
"While working on AWS Glue, I could not find any training material for it."
"The solution should offer features for streaming data in addition to batching data."
"The mapping area and the use of the data catalog from Glue could be better."
"Overall, I consider the technical support to be fine, although the response time could be faster in certain cases."
"AWS Glue is more costly compared to other tools like Airflow."
"I would like to see stable libraries at the moment they are not there."
"I would like to see a more robust interface on the no-code side. This would be nice to be able to split cells."
"There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and faster support."
"The private solution is expensive. If you're in a situation where you're paying IBM or AWS or somebody just to host you specifically, you're paying people to run it and you're taking care of all the upgrades."
"I would like to see it become mobile-friendly."
"Improvement is a never ending story, and HANA is doing some improvements. We are able to adopt that, and we have to do it by integration with HANA. They are very major changes that we need to see."
AWS Glue is ranked 1st in Cloud Data Integration with 37 reviews while SAP Replication Server is ranked 14th in Database Development and Management with 6 reviews. AWS Glue is rated 7.8, while SAP Replication Server is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS Glue writes "Provides serverless mechanism, easy data transformation and automated infrastructure management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Replication Server writes "Eliminates replication and allows you to use only one database, speeding up performance and reducing amount of storage". AWS Glue is most compared with AWS Database Migration Service, Informatica PowerCenter, SSIS, Informatica Cloud Data Integration and Talend Open Studio, whereas SAP Replication Server is most compared with Qlik Replicate, Oracle GoldenGate, Fivetran, SSIS and SAP Data Services. See our AWS Glue vs. SAP Replication Server report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
