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

Jitterbit Harmony vs Skyvia comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 2026

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

Jitterbit Harmony
Ranking in Data Integration
52nd
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
24th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Workload Automation (31st), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (18th)
Skyvia
Ranking in Data Integration
51st
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Cloud Data Integration category, the mindshare of Jitterbit Harmony is 1.8%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Skyvia is 1.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Data Integration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Jitterbit Harmony1.8%
Skyvia1.3%
Other96.9%
Cloud Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Mohamed Abd Kader - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Enterprise Architecture at Mantrac Group
An easy-to-setup solution with good stability
We use Jitterbit to connect cloud solutions with our on-premises ERP system We connect cloud solutions to our on-premise ERP system easily using Jitterbit. It is its most valuable feature.  The solution's API management capabilities need improvement. We have been using the solution for almost…
RH
CTO & Developer at a consultancy with self employed
The product works, is simple to use, and is reliable.
Error handling. This has caused me many problems in the past. When an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented. If I attempt a retry or opt not to display an error dialog, it does it anyway. In all fairness, I have never reported this. I think it is more important that a unique error code is passed to the error event that identifies a uniform type of error that occurred, such as ecDisconnect, eoInvalidField. It is very hard to find what any of the error codes currently passed actually mean. A list would be great for each database engine. Trying to catch an exception without displaying the UniDAC error message is impossible, no matter how you modify the parameters in the OnError of the TUniConnection object. I have already implemented the following things myself. They are suggestions rather than specific requests. Copy Datasets: This contains an abundance of redundant options. I think that a facility to copy one dataset to another in a single call would be handy. Redundancy: I am currently working on this. I have extended the TUniConnection to have an additional property called FallbackConnection. If the TUniConnection goes offline, the connection attempts to connect the FallbackConnection. If successful, it then sets the Connection properties of all live UniDatasets in the app to the FallbackConnection and re-opens them if necessary. The extended TUniConnection holds a list of datasets that were created. Each dataset is responsible for registering itself with the connection. This is a highly specific feature. It supports an offline mode that is found in mission critical/point of sale solutions. I have never seen it implement before in any DACs, but I think it is a really unique feature with a big impact. Dataset to JSON/XML: A ToSql function on a dataset that creates a full SQL Text statement with all parameters converted to text (excluding blobs) and included in the returned string. Extended TUniScript:- TMyUniScript allows me to add lines of text to a script using the normal dataset functions, Script.Append, Script.FieldByName(‘xxx’).AsString := ‘yyy’, Script.AddToScript and finally Script.Post, then Script.Commit. The AddToScript builds the SQL text statement and appends it to the script using #e above. Record Size Calculation. It would be great if UniDac could estimate the size of a particular record from a query or table. This could be used to automatically set the packet fetch/request count based on the size of the Ethernet packets on the local area network. This I believe would increase performance and reduce network traffic for returning larger datasets. I am aware that this would also be a unique feature to UniDac but would gain a massive performance enhancement. I would suggest setting the packet size on the TUniConnection which would effect all linked datasets.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
884,328 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Performing Arts
23%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Marketing Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise1
No data available
 

Also Known As

Jitterbit, Jitterbit Harmony
Skyvia, Skyvia Data Integration
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

LA Metro, Mophie, Club Auto, University of Miami, Exostar, Dialog Direct, Avero, Greenpoint Technologies, Berklee Online, Odyssey, KeyedIn Solutions, Swish Maintenance, SPP Pumps Limited, Talent Plus, Ricoh Canada, Televerde, Reed Construction Data, Sika US, Sunkist Growers
Boeing, Sony, Honda, Oracle, BMW, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: February 2026.
884,328 professionals have used our research since 2012.