IBM Cloud Pak for Integration vs Informatica PowerExchange comparison

"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."

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

"From the product feature or product capability perspective, the aspects around integration, transformation, and standardization are valuable. It's fairly easy to use. It has a GUI-based interface."

"The product’s flexibility is valuable."

"It is a scalable and versatile solution."

"The scalability is excellent."

"The most valuable feature is connectivity to data sources."

"Overall, it's a good tool. It's currently number one on the market. It pretty much has all the necessary capabilities to pull the incremental data from the source system, technically speaking."

"The agentless RCDC enablement through PowerExchange is a great idea and has worked very well so far."

"It is easy to integrate the solution with other tools."

"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."

"Its queuing and messaging features need improvement."

"The pricing can be improved."

"The solution needs better integration with other tools."

"They should make it quick and easy for use of citizen data integration or for people or integrators developing at the customer side. They could be development teams within the business team. For them, the product owners can consider making it a little bit more seamless and a little bit more democratized."

"The solution could be made more user-friendly. The configurations are also quite difficult."

"One area that could be improved is performance, as PowerExchange sometimes has less performance compared to native connectors when dealing with a huge volume of data."

"I would like to have easier integration with cloud platforms."

"The product is not suitable for application integration."

"It would be helpful to have more metadata provided, which is useful for engaging more users in data exchange."

"The connectivity with T24 core banking could be improved."

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

"It is an expensive solution."

"The product is not very expensive."

"There are licensing and connector costs. Basically, Informatica is pay-as-you-use."

"Many users don't prefer to use the product, considering the high costs attached to the licensing part of the solution."

"The cost of PowerExchange is reasonable. It does not rely on complicated formulas or unrealistic equations. The pricing model is straightforward. There is one component, and real-time integration is included. Some other solutions require purchasing additional modules or third-party plugins for this capability."

"There is a need to pay towards the licensing cost of the product. It is an expensive product."

"An annual package license fee is required."

"It's expensive. In fact, nobody would buy any product of Informatica if the price was the only consideration. It costs money, and it doesn't come cheap, but it provides value for money in many ways."