No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CloverETL vs SAS Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 19, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

CloverETL
Ranking in Data Integration
57th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Visualization (34th)
SAS Access
Ranking in Data Integration
59th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Data Integration category, the mindshare of CloverETL is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Access is 0.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Integration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CloverETL0.8%
SAS Access0.7%
Other98.5%
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

it_user856614 - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Programmer at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them, however we run out heap space even with a high allocation
Flexibility: We can bring in data from multiple sources, e.g., databases, text files, JSON, email, XML, etc. This has been very helpful Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility. Server features for scheduler: It is…
Robert Heck - PeerSpot reviewer
Co Owner at Hecht und Heck GmbH
The solution is stable, scalable, and flexible
I rate the solution eight out of ten. The number of people required to maintain the solution is dependent on the other applications running. The solution in itself does not require a lot of maintenance. The solution is flexible and I recommend it when you have more complex applications with special requirements.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use.​​"
"We switched to CloverETL because of its flexibility to connect to various data sources and no dependence on native language and ease of use."
"Familiar, intuitive GUI coming from a Java development background, in-depth, descriptive, and well-laid-out documentation, responsive support through forums directly from Clover staff, a wealth of customizable pre-defined components, descriptive logging for error messages, and ease of install with a light footprint make it very effective to use."
"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."
"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The most valuable part of SAS/ACCESS is what it is made for: connecting to remote systems that are not part of your physical SAS environment."
"The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The SAS/ACCESS ability to connect creates an elegant simplicity."
"The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."
 

Cons

"Its documentation could be improved.​"
"Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough."
"Needs easier automated failure recovery, more and more intuitive auto-generated or filled-in code for components, and easier or more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."
"​Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough.​"
"Needs: easier automated failure recovery; more, and more intuitive auto-generated/filled-in code for components; easier/more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."
"I can't really recall any missing feature or general improvement that is needed. We don't really add too many new kinds of databases and therefore our needs are already met."
"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."
"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."
"The solution's pricing and licensing are expensive."
"The primary way that this product can be improved is by adjusting their pricing model."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing model is complex and is based on modular packages as well as the size of the applicable environment."
"The solution's pricing and licensing are expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
27%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
SAS/Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, Oracle, MuleSoft, GoodData, Thomson Reuters, salesforce.com, Comcast, Active Network, SHOP.CA
Los Angeles County, West Midlands Police, Credit Guarantee Corporation, Canada Post, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty
Find out what your peers are saying about CloverETL vs. SAS Access and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.