FME vs IBM Cloud Pak for Integration comparison

"We make minor subtle changes to the workbenches to improve it. We can share the workbenches. We don't have to use GitHub or anything else."

"FME is spatially aware and understands how to deal with the conversion of spatial objects and their attributes."

"It has standard plug-ins available for different data sources."

"All spatial features are unrivaled, and the possibility to execute them based on a scheduled trigger, manual, e-mail, Websocket, tweet, file/directory change or virtually any trigger is most valuable."

"It has a very friendly user interface. You don't need to use a lot of code. For us that's the most important aspect about it. Also, it has a lot of connectors and few forms. It has a strong facial aspect. It can do a lot of facial analysis."

"The most valuable feature of FME is the graphical user interface. There is nothing better. It is very easy to debug because you can see all steps where there are failures. Overall the software is easy to optimize a process."

"Redirection is a key feature. It helps in managing multiple microservices by centralizing control and access."

"The most valuable aspect of the Cloud Pak, in general, is the flexibility that you have to use the product."

"Cloud Pak for Integration is definitely scalable. That is the most important criteria."

"The most preferable aspect would be the elimination of the command, which was a significant improvement. In the past, it was a challenge, but now we can proceed smoothly with the implementation of our policies and everything is managed through JCP. It's still among the positive aspects, and it's a valuable feature."

"It is a stable solution."

"Improvements could be made to mapping presentations."

"FME's price needs improvement for the African market."

"FME can improve the geographical transformation. I've had some problems with the geographical transformations, but it's probably mostly because I'm not the most skilled geographer in-house. The solution requires some in-depth knowledge to perform some functions."

"The one thing that always appears in the community is the ability to make really easy loops to loop through data efficiently. That needs to be added at some point."

"We are looking at the possibility of using Glue instead of FME, using the native AWS product."

"To get a higher rating, it would have to improve the price and the associated scalability. These are the main issues."

"Setting up Cloud Pak for Integration is relatively complex. It's not as easy because it has not yet been fully integrated. You still have some products that are still not containerized, so you still have to run them on a dedicated VM."

"Enterprise bots are needed to balance products like Kafka and Confluent."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"The pricing can be improved."

"Its queuing and messaging features need improvement."

"FME Server used to cost £10,000; now it can cost over £100,000."

"The product's price is reasonable."

"We used the standard licensing for our use of FME. The cost was approximately €15,000 annually. We always welcome less expensive solutions, if the solution could be less expensive it would be helpful."

"It is an expensive solution."

"The solution's pricing model is very flexible."