We performed a comparison between IBM InfoSphere Information Server and SAP Process Orchestration based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Informatica, Oracle and others in Data Integration."The integration with different technologies is the most valuable feature."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server is stable."
"This solution is extremely flexible and scalable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is stable."
"t is a pretty stable solution. I have not seen any outages in the solution."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"It is strategically focused to forecast a global integration platform for our business."
"SAP Process Orchestration is middleware where we are able to manage and interact with everything from a single location. One of the most beneficial areas is monitoring which is very easy because it is all in one place. There are many adapters added recently that can be used for new functionality. The solution is easy to operate and it is more mature than the cloud solution provided by SAP."
"The product has good technical support but you usually will not need it because it is quite stable."
"In my opinion, SAP PO is the most mature suite of tools to integrate processes across SAP environments at this moment. It's really unbeatable because it allows you to integrate whatever scenarios you can imagine."
"There are certain shortcomings in the cloud side of the solution, where improvements are required."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server should be more scalable. It should have the option to change the configuration to run on a single, non-multiple node, or multi-threading processing."
"This solution would benefit from the engine being made more lightweight."
"Their technical support needs improvement."
"I think the main area that SAP PO should improve on is offering pre-delivered content like they do when you use SAP Cloud Platform Integration (CPI). SAP should not forget that they still have a lot of customers using Process Orchestration and they should focus more on providing pre-delivered content in SAP PO."
"The solution needs to move to the cloud."
"The responsiveness of technical support needs to be improved."
"The solution could be more scalable."
"Process Orchestration needs to provide secure connectivity as no one has any data information."
"The solution could improve by making it more user-friendly by limiting the code required. We have to add some code in some cases where we need complex logic or some other functions. If this was able to be done in a more simplified manner then it would save a lot of effort and time."
"This is an on-premise platform and one area they can improve on is having the ability to work with SaaS solutions."
"We encounter challenges while connecting to MQTT and MQDD adapters."
More IBM InfoSphere Information Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM InfoSphere Information Server is ranked 36th in Data Integration with 7 reviews while SAP Process Orchestration is ranked 1st in Business-to-Business Middleware with 28 reviews. IBM InfoSphere Information Server is rated 8.4, while SAP Process Orchestration is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM InfoSphere Information Server writes "Prompt support, reliable, but lacking scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Process Orchestration writes "A tool that can be useful for small integrations and large integrations". IBM InfoSphere Information Server is most compared with IBM InfoSphere DataStage, Qlik Replicate, IBM Watson Knowledge Catalog, IBM Cloud Pak for Data and Oracle GoldenGate, whereas SAP Process Orchestration is most compared with Mule Anypoint Platform, SAP Data Services, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, webMethods Integration Server and IBM B2B Integrator.
We monitor all Data Integration reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
