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

Microsoft MDS vs Riversand MDMCenter comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 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

Microsoft MDS
Ranking in Master Data Management (MDM) Software
3rd
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Riversand MDMCenter
Ranking in Master Data Management (MDM) Software
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Master Data Management (MDM) Software category, the mindshare of Microsoft MDS is 13.3%, up from 13.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Riversand MDMCenter is 1.4%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Master Data Management (MDM) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Satyam Saxena - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced data management and cost effective with flexible integration capabilities
If Microsoft MDS were part of Azure, it would be significantly more helpful. Additionally, integrating fuzzy duplication within MDS itself, rather than relying on SSIS, would streamline operations. The current requirement to store data in Azure tables after processing it in MDS, due to its lack of direct Azure integration, is a drawback.
SS
A user-friendly data management software with a valuable matching feature
Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part. They don't have their own integration platform. We have to rely on a third-party integration partner. They say this is the format, and it's the client's responsibility to bring the data into their required format. They have to have an integration partner and develop their integration capabilities. It's not so flexible to read any data format or system, for example, SAP. They don't have a connector.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What I like about Microsoft, is that it has a huge database with many users."
"It has been a long-standing tool in our organization since it was free."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft MDS is its compatibility with ETL tools like SSIS, which simplifies operations for end-users."
"The solution is easy to install."
"The ease of use is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft MDS is its management."
"Enables non-technical people to directly interact with the BI system."
"One of the main features I have found useful is the integration with Azure active directory."
"It's a stable solution. I have no complaints."
"I like their matching feature, and the survivorship rules are very strong. I also like their out-of-box reports, data quality dashboards, and more. Those are also very handy and helpful. Internally, I like the kind of configurations that we can create, validations, and enhancements. Those configurations are pretty straightforward and useful. It's a user-friendly tool that is very cool."
"Has a good user interface and the ability to update large sets of products quickly."
 

Cons

"It would be a better option to have an on-cloud version."
"The only drawback is that it does not have the matching, merging, and all true MDM components. For these, you have to use another competent called Data Quality Services (DQS). You need to plug it in and use it along with MDS for true MDM. Both of these are integrated together, but you have to do them separately, whereas, in Profisee, there are a couple of screens where you can configure the matching process, create matching rules, and other things, and everything is in one product, which is not the case with MDS. In order to implement a true MDM, you need MDS, DQS, and SSIS. You have to use MDS to store your golden records, DQS to configure and standardize all your rules and matching percentages, and SSIS to load the data to DQS and MDS. At the same time, you also need Melissa Data to clean up your addresses to validate and standardize the addresses. That's the main component of true MDM. It would be good if they can create a true matching component inside MDS and merge MDS and DQS."
"The program's navigation tools could be improved."
"Most of the Microsoft partners, especially digitally, are separate. Personnel are business people, and they do not have technical expertise, so you end up as a company spending a lot of money training your staff and your engineers."
"From my understanding, MS, as of 2021, will not maintain the product going forward."
"I do not like using Silverlight and Internet Explorer. The new 2019 version gets rid of that, which is one of the reasons why we are looking to switch."
"If Microsoft MDS were part of Azure, it would be significantly more helpful."
"Microsoft MDS isn't getting strong support because Microsoft is focusing more on cloud solutions."
"Integration could be better. Riversand is majorly focusing on only the MDM hub part. They don't have their own integration platform. We have to rely on a third-party integration partner. They say this is the format, and it's the client's responsibility to bring the data into their required format. They have to have an integration partner and develop their integration capabilities. It's not so flexible to read any data format or system, for example, SAP. They don't have a connector."
"The ability to create bespoke workflows could be improved."
"The solution does not have a good match and search capability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"MDS is a part of the SQL Server enterprise license. I am not aware of any additional costs."
"Product licensing is very complicated. It would be helpful to have an online calculator to estimate the cost of a license."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"Microsoft MDS is an expensive solution."
"The solution does require a license and we have enterprise licenses."
"SAP is more expensive than Microsoft."
"With Microsoft, we buy everything though an agreement, so we purchase volume licensing every year."
"The pricing of this solution is good."
"Riversand MDMCenter isn't expensive. I believe their price is in the mid-range."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Master Data Management (MDM) Software solutions are best for your needs.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft MDS?
More generic related things can be included in the services.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft MDS?
Microsoft MDS is free. Currently, there is no pricing concern with the tool.
What needs improvement with Microsoft MDS?
Microsoft MDS is outdated and lacks modern capabilities. It is too slow and does not support automated mapping or AI-based functionalities. Although I created Python scripts for some machine learni...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Master Data Services, Microsoft MDM, Microsoft SQL Server Master Data Services, MS MDS
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ETA a.s., Apeejay Surrendra Group, Blue Star Infotech, Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation, The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, New Belgium Brewing
Topco, PC Connection, Balsam Brands, Nivea, Eucerin, Tine, Schneider Electric, Miller, ExxonMobil, Baxter, ConocoPhillips, Cameron International, Chevron, Husky Energy, Saint-Gobain, Fingerhut
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft MDS vs. Riversand MDMCenter and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.