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

IBM Cloud Pak for Data vs Teradata comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

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

IBM Cloud Pak for Data
Ranking in Data Integration
25th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Data Virtualization (3rd)
Teradata
Ranking in Data Integration
17th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Customer Experience Management (6th), Backup and Recovery (20th), Relational Databases Tools (8th), Data Warehouse (3rd), BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (10th), Marketing Management (6th), Cloud Data Warehouse (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Data Integration category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Pak for Data is 1.8%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Teradata is 1.0%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Michelle Leslie - PeerSpot reviewer
Starts strong with data management capabilities but needs a demo database
What I would love to see is an end-to-end, almost a training demo database of some sort, where one of the biggest problems with data management is demonstrated. There are so many components to data management, and more often than not, people understand one thing really well. They may understand DataStage and how to move data around, but they do not see the impact of moving data incorrectly. They also do not see the impact of everyone understanding a piece of data in the same way. I would love Cloud Pak to come with a demo database that illustrates the different components of data management in a logical way, so I can see the whole picture instead of just the area I'm specializing in. It would be great if Cloud Pak, from a data modeling point of view, allowed us to import our PDMs, for example. It would be ideal to import and create business terms in Cloud Pak. The PEA would be great to create the technical data. The association between the business and the technical metadata could then be automated by pulling it through from your ACE models. The data modeling component is available in Cloud Pak. Additionally, when it comes to Cloud Pak, even though it has the NextGen DataStage built into it, there is Cloud Pak for data integration as well. Currently, I do not think we have a full enough understanding of how CP4D and CP4I can enhance each other.
SurjitChoudhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers seamless integration capabilities and performance optimization features, including extensive indexing and advanced tuning capabilities
We created and constructed the warehouse. We used multiple loading processes like MultiLoad, FastLoad, and Teradata Pump. But those are loading processes, and Teradata is a powerful tool because if we consider older technologies, its architecture with nodes, virtual processes, and nodes is a unique concept. Later, other technologies like Informatica also adopted the concept of nodes from Informatica PowerCenter version 7.x. Previously, it was a client-server architecture, but later, it changed to the nodes concept. Like, we can have the database available 24/7, 365 days. If one node fails, other nodes can take care of it. Informatica adopted all those concepts when it changed its architecture. Even Oracle databases have since adapted their architecture to them. However, this particular Teradata company initially started with its own different type of architecture, which major companies later adopted. It has grown now, but initially, whatever query we sent it would be mapped into a particular component. After that, it goes to the virtual processor and down to the disk, where the actual physical data is loaded. So, in between, there's a map, which acts like a data dictionary. It also holds information about each piece of data, where it's loaded, and on which particular virtual processor or node the data resides. Because Teradata comes with a four-node architecture, or however many nodes we choose, the cost is determined by that initially. So, what type of data does each and every node hold? It's a shared-no architecture. So, whatever task is given to a virtual processor it will be processed. If there's a failure, then it will be taken care of by another virtual processor. Moreover, this solution has impacted the query time and data performance. In Teradata, there's a lot of joining, partitioning, and indexing of records. There are primary and secondary indexes, hash indexing, and other indexing processes. To improve query performance, we first analyze the query and tune it. If a join needs a secondary index, which plays a major role in filtering records, we might reconstruct that particular table with the secondary index. This tuning involves partitioning and indexing. We use these tools and technologies to fine-tune performance. When it comes to integration, tools like Informatica seamlessly connect with Teradata. We ensure the Teradata database is configured correctly in Informatica, including the proper hostname and properties for the load process. We didn't find any major complexity or issues with integration. But, these technologies are quite old now. With newer big data technologies, we've worked with a four-layer architecture, pulling data from Hadoop Lake to Teradata. We configure Teradata with the appropriate hostname and credentials, and use BTEQ queries to load data. Previously, we converted the data warehouse to a CLD model as per Teradata's standardized procedures, moving from an ETL to an EMT process. This allowed us to perform gap analysis on missing entities based on the model and retrieve them from the source system again. We found Teradata integration straightforward and compatible with other tools.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a scalable solution, and we have had no issues with its scalability in our company. I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten."
"IBM Watson Catalog and data pipelines are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Cloud Pak is a very, very, very good system."
"I love the way that I can start at a very basic level with my data management journey by capturing my policies, justifying my data, and putting them into different categories to say this is data relating to individuals, for example, or data relating to geography."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine or ten out of ten."
"One of Cloud Pak's best features is the Watson Knowledge Catalog, which helps you implement data governance."
"The most valuable features are data virtualization and reporting."
"DataStage allows me to connect to different data sources."
"I found all parts --loading, transformation, processing & querying work in parallel, and end-to-end-- to be valuable."
"It is a stable program."
"It's very, very fast"
"It's very mature from a technology perspective."
"It's a pre-configured appliance that requires very little in terms of setting-up."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Auto-partitioning and indexing, and resource allocation on the fly are key features."
"It has massive parallel processing ability to do large amounts of concurrent querying."
 

Cons

"The solution could have more connectors."
"The technical support could be a little better."
"The product is trying to be more maturity in terms of connectors. That, I believe, is an area where Cloud Pak can improve."
"The tool depends on the control plane, an OpenShift container platform utilized as an orchestration layer...So, we have communicated this issue to IBM and asked if it is feasible to adapt the solution to work on a Kubernetes platform that we support."
"The product must improve its performance."
"The setup cost is very expensive. The cost depends on the pieces of the solution I'm using, how much data I have, and whether it's on the cloud or on-prem."
"One thing that bugs me is how much infrastructure Cloud Pak requires for the initial deployment. It doesn't allow you to start small. The smallest permitted deployment is too big. It's a huge problem that prevents us from implementing the solution in many scenarios."
"Cloud Pak would be improved with integration with cloud service providers like Cloudera."
"The setup is not straightforward."
"​The initial setup was complex as we had to rewrite a lot of the code.​"
"Azure Synapse SQL has evolved from a solely dedicated support tool to a data lake. It can store data from multiple systems, not just traditional database management systems. On the other hand, Teradata has limitations in loading flat files or unstructured data directly into its warehouse. In Azure Synapse SQL, we can implement machine learning using Python scripts. Additionally, Azure Synapse SQL offers advanced analytical capabilities compared to Teradata. Teradata is also expensive."
"Teradata has a few AI models, but in data science, we need more flexibility."
"Teradata hardly supports unstructured data or semi-structured data"
"The solution’s pricing, scalability, and technical support response time could be improved."
"I would like to see an improved Knowledge Base on the web."
"It's primarily designed for big projects and therefore, the pricing is pretty high. It's not suitable for smaller companies."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I don't have the exact licensing cost for IBM Cloud Pak for Data, as my company is still finalizing requirements, including monthly, yearly, and three-year licensing fees. Still, on a scale of one to five, I'd rate it a three because, compared to other vendors, it's more complicated."
"The solution's pricing is competitive with that of other vendors."
"It's quite expensive."
"For the licensing of the solution, there is a yearly payment that needs to be made. Also, since it is expensive, cost-wise, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten."
"The solution is expensive."
"I think that this product is too expensive for smaller companies."
"Cloud Pak's cost is a little high."
"IBM Cloud Pak for Data is expensive. If we include the training time and the machine learning, it's expensive. The cost of the execution is more reasonable."
"It is still a very expensive solution. While I very much like the pure technological supremacy of the software itself, I believe Teradata as a company needs to become more affordable. They are already losing the market to more flexible or cheaper competitors."
"I am using the free version of Teradata."
"It's a very expensive product."
"Make sure you have the in-house skills to design and support the solution, as relying on external sources is extremely costly and tends to lock you into specific platforms, tools, and paradigms."
"We had a lot of parties involved when purchasing from the AWS Marketplace. They are very flexible and aggressive in trying to close the deal. They are good at what they have to offer and listening to the customer. It's a two-way street."
"We are looking for a more flexible cost model for the next version that we use, whether it be cloud or on-premise."
"Users have to pay a yearly licensing fee for Teradata IntelliFlex, which is very expensive."
"​When looking into implementing this product, pricing is the main issue followed by technical expertise​."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Pak for Data?
DataStage allows me to connect to different data sources.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Pak for Data?
The setup cost is very expensive. The cost depends on the pieces of the solution I'm using, how much data I have, and whether it's on the cloud or on-prem.
What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Pak for Data?
What I would love to see is an end-to-end, almost a training demo database of some sort, where one of the biggest problems with data management is demonstrated. There are so many components to data...
Comparing Teradata and Oracle Database, which product do you think is better and why?
I have spoken to my colleagues about this comparison and in our collective opinion, the reason why some people may declare Teradata better than Oracle is the pricing. Both solutions are quite simi...
Which companies use Teradata and who is it most suitable for?
Before my organization implemented this solution, we researched which big brands were using Teradata, so we knew if it would be compatible with our field. According to the product's site, the comp...
Is Teradata a difficult solution to work with?
Teradata is not a difficult product to work with, especially since they offer you technical support at all levels if you just ask. There are some features that may cause difficulties - for example,...
 

Also Known As

Cloud Pak for Data
IntelliFlex, Aster Data Map Reduce, , QueryGrid, Customer Interaction Manager, Digital Marketing Center, Data Mover, Data Stream Architecture
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Qatar Development Bank, GuideWell, Skanderborg Music Festival
Netflix
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Pak for Data vs. Teradata and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.