Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CloverETL vs SAS Data Integration Server 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
61st
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Visualization (39th)
SAS Data Integration Server
Ranking in Data Integration
41st
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Data Integration category, the mindshare of CloverETL is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Data Integration Server is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Integration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SAS Data Integration Server0.6%
CloverETL0.5%
Other98.9%
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

it_user856614 - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
NN
Offloads processes on the server side but needs better installation syntax
One area for improvement is the installation process. Another point could be the syntax, as it sometimes involves using syntax names that are not intuitive. For example, to calculate the difference between two dates, the general syntax in SAS is called the data difference or data net function. However, another name is used, such as NF and INK. Without knowledge of SAS programming, it becomes unclear what these functions mean. It is not good to define function names this way.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use.​​"
"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."
"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"The solution is very stable."
"A key feature allows us to enhance job performance by offloading processing to the server side, rather than processing on the server itself."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its amazing capabilities in regard to data handling."
"A key feature allows us to enhance job performance by offloading processing to the server side, rather than processing on the server itself."
"The solution offers very good data manipulation and loading."
"A key feature allows us to enhance job performance by offloading processing to the server side, rather than processing on the server itself."
 

Cons

"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."
"​Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough.​"
"Its documentation could be improved.​"
"The initial setup had issues, and even after using it for about one year, it was still not fixed."
"So I would like to see improved integration with other software."
"One area for improvement is the installation process."
"The initial setup had issues, and even after using it for about one year, it was still not fixed."
"The transform tool has limited access. They should make it more flexible."
"The initial setup of SAS Data Integration Server was complex."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is an expensive program."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with SAS Data Integration Server?
One area for improvement is the installation process. Another point could be the syntax, as it sometimes involves using syntax names that are not intuitive. For example, to calculate the difference...
What is your primary use case for SAS Data Integration Server?
I am involved in the ETR job. My role is focused on executing the ETR job.
What advice do you have for others considering SAS Data Integration Server?
I use it without further details. For example, if I use SAS to connect to a NetEazt database or purchase a shared asset to ODBC, I can connect to any database with ODBC connection support. The over...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SAS Enterprise Data Integration Server, Enterprise Data Integration Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, Oracle, MuleSoft, GoodData, Thomson Reuters, salesforce.com, Comcast, Active Network, SHOP.CA
Credit Guarantee Corporation, Cr_dito y Cauci‹n, Delaware State Police, Deutsche Lufthansa, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, DSM, Livzon Pharmaceutical Group, Los Angeles County, Miami Herald Media Company, Netherlands Enterprise Agency, New Zealand Ministry of Health, Nippon Paper, West Midlands Police, XS Inc., Zenith Insurance
Find out what your peers are saying about CloverETL vs. SAS Data Integration Server and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.